We are anonymous, we are legion

Net Neutrality, Free Speech and the Indian Constitution - I

gautam — 2014-04-29T08:03:57Z

In this post, I will explore net neutrality in the context of Indian law and the Indian Constitution.

Let us take, for the purposes of this post, the following definition:

“The idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally is known as network neutrality. In other words, no matter who uploads or downloads data, or what kind of data is involved, networks should treat all of those packets in the same manner.”

In other words, put simply, net neutrality in its broadest form requires the extant gatekeepers of the internet – such as, for instance, broadband companies – to accord a form of equal and non-discriminatory treatment to all those who want to access the internet. Examples of possible discrimination – as the quote above illustrates – include, for instance, blocking content or providing differential internet speed (perhaps on the basis of a tiered system of payment for access).

Net neutrality has its proponents and opponents, and I do not have space here to address that dispute. In its broadest and absolutist form, net neutrality is highly controversial (including arguments that existing status quo is not neutral in any genuine sense). I take as given, however, that some form of net neutrality is both an important and a desirable goal. In particular, intentional manipulation of information that is available to internet users – especially for political purposes – is, I assume, an undesirable outcome, as are anti-competitive practices, as well as price-discrimination for the most basic access to the internet (this brief article in the Times of India provides a decent, basic primer on the stakes involved).

An example of net neutrality in practice is the American Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order of 2010, which was the subject of litigation in the recently concluded Verizon v. FCC. The Open Internet order imposed obligations of transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination, upon internet service providers. The second and third requirements were vacated by a United States Court of Appeals. The rationale for the Court’s decision was that ISPs could not be equated, in law, to “common carriers”. A common carrier is an entity that offers to transport persons and/or goods in exchange for a fee (for example, shipping companies, or bus companies). A common carrier is licensed to be one, and often, one of the conditions for license is an obligation not to discriminate. That is, the common carrier cannot refuse to carry an individual who is willing and able to pay the requisite fees, in the absence of a compelling reason (for example, if the individual wishes the carrier to transport contraband). Proponents of net neutrality have long called for treating ISPs as common carriers, a proposition – as observed above – was rejected by the Court.

With this background, let us turn to India. In India, internet service providers are both state-owned (BSNL and MTNL), and privately-owned (Airtel, Spectranet, Reliance, Sify etc). Unlike many other countries, however, India has no network-neutrality laws. As this informative article observes:

“The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), in its guidelines for issuing licences for providing Unified Access Service, promotes the principle of non-discrimination but does not enforce it… the Information Technology Act does not provide regulatory provisions relating to Internet access, and does not expressly prohibit an ISP from controlling the Internet to suit their business interests.”

In the absence of either legislation or regulation, there are two options. One, of course, is to invoke the rule of common carriers as a common law rule in court, should an ISP violate the principles of net neutrality. In this post (and the next), however, I would like to analyze net neutrality within a constitutional framework – in particular, within the framework of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.

In order to do so, two questions become important, and I shall address them in turn. First, given that most of the ISPs are privately owned, how does the Constitution even come into the picture? Our fundamental rights are enforceable vertically, that is, between individuals and the State, and not horizontally – that is, between two individuals, or two private parties. Where the Constitution intends to depart from this principle (for instance, Article 15(2)), it specifically and expressly states so. As far as Article 19 and the fundamental freedoms are concerned, however, it is clear that they do not admit of horizontal application.

Yet what, precisely, are we to understand by the term “State”? Consider Article 12:

“In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”

The key question is what, precisely, falls within the meaning of “other authorities”. The paradigmatic example – and this is something Ambedkar had in mind, as is evidenced by the Constituent Assembly Debates – is the statutory corporation – i.e., a company established under a statute. There are, however, more difficult cases, for instance, public-private partnerships of varying types. For the last fifty years, the Supreme Court has struggled with the issue of defining “other authorities” for the purposes of Part III of the Constitution, with the pendulum swinging wildly at times. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, a 2002 judgment by a Constitution bench, the Court settled upon the following definition:

“The question in each case would be whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State.”

Very obviously, this dooms the ISP argument. There is no way to argue that ISPs are under the pervasive financial, functional and administrative domination or control of the State. If we step back for a moment, though, the Pradeep Kumar Biswas test seems to be radically under-inclusive. Consider the following hypothetical: tomorrow, the government decides to privatize the nation’s water supply to private company X. Company X is the sole distributor of water in the country. On gaining control, it decides to cut off the water supply to all households populated by members of a certain religion. There seems something deeply wrong in the argument that there is no remedy under discrimination law against the conduct of the company.

The argument could take two forms. One could argue that there is a certain minimum baseline of State functions (ensuring reasonable access to public utilities, overall maintenance of communications, defence and so on). The baseline may vary depending on your personal political philosophy (education? Health? Infrastructure?), but within the baseline, as established, if a private entity performs a State function, it is assimilated to the State. One could also argue, however, that even if Part III isn’t directly applicable, certain functions are of a public nature, and attract public law obligations that are identical in content to fundamental rights obligations under Part III, although their source is not Part III.

To unpack this idea, consider Justice Mohan’s concurring opinion in Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, a case that involved the constitutionality of high capitation fees charged by private educational institutions. One of the arguments raised against the educational institutions turned upon the applicability of Article 14’s guarantee of equality. The bench avoided the issue of whether Article 14 directly applied to private educational institutions by framing the issue as a question of the constitutionality of the legislation that regulated capitation fees. Justice Mohan, however, observed:

“What is the nature of functions discharged by these institutions? They discharge a public duty. If a student desires to acquire a degree, for example, in medicine, he will have to route through a medical college. These medical colleges are the instruments to attain the qualification. If, therefore, what is discharged by the educational institution, is a public duty that requires… [it to] act fairly. In such a case, it will be subject to Article 14.”

In light of Pradeep Kumar Biswas, it is obviously difficult to hold the direct application of the Constitution to private entities. We can take Justice Mohan, however, to be making a slightly different point: performing what are quintessentially public duties attract certain obligations that circumscribe the otherwise free action of private entities. The nature of the obligation itself depends upon the nature of the public act. Education, it would seem, is an activity that is characterized by open and non-discriminatory access. Consequently, even private educational institutions are required to abide by the norms of fairness articulated by Article 14, even though they may not, as a matter of constitutional law, be held in violation of the Article 14 that is found in the constitutional text. Again, the content of the obligation is the same, but its source (the constitutional text, as opposed to norms of public law) is different.

We have therefore established that in certain cases, it is possible to subject private entities performing public functions to constitutional norms without bringing them under Article 12’s definition of the State, and without the need for an enacted statute, or a set of regulations. In the next post, we shall explore in greater detail what this means, and how it might be relevant to ISPs and net neutrality.

Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and presently an LLM student at the Yale Law School. He blogs about the Indian Constitution at http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com. Here at CIS, he will be blogging on issues of online freedom of speech and expression.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-part-1

Net Neutrality Resources

praskrishna — 2017-04-22T09:11:21Z

Submissions by the Centre for Internet and Society to TRAI and DoT, 2015-2017.

Submission for TRAI Consultation on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-Top Services (June 29, 2015)
Submission to TRAI Consultation on Differential Pricing (January 7, 2016)
Counter Comments to TRAI on Differential Pricing (January 14, 2016)
TRAI Consultation on Differential Pricing for Data Services: Post-Open House Discussion Submission (January 25, 2016)
Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data (June 30, 2016)
Submission to TRAI Consultation on Proliferation of Broadband through Public WiFi Networks (August 28, 2016)
Submission to TRAI Consultation Note on Model for Nation-wide Interoperable and Scalable Public Wi-Fi Networks (December 12, 2016)
Submission to TRAI Consultation on Net Neutrality (April 18, 2017)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality-resources

Net neutrality debate rages

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T14:45:34Z

While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game.

The article by Lalatendu Mishra and Pradeesh Chandran was published in the Hindu on April 15, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

It’s a major victory for the proponents of net neutrality and a big setback for service provider Airtel. As the e-commerce firm Flipkart pulled out of talks on joining the controversial Airtel Zero platform, launched by Airtel last week, the debate on net neutrality has taken a fresh turn in the Indian context. In the wake of a virtual uproar in social media and following wide condemnation by votaries of net neutrality, Flipkart has to just give in. With Flipkart-induced new twist in the net neutrality game, the Internet Service Providers (ISPs), mostly telecom operators, are running for cover without knowing how to deal with the evolving situation that has the potential to adversely affect their business.

While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game. And, they are unwilling to comment on a subject that has become an emotive issue. There are, however, voices which seek a middle path as solution to this issue.

“We are in favour of net neutrality. But this has to be defined in the Indian context. That is what TRAI is precisely doing. The debate on net neutrality is appropriate and important. All stakeholders should be able to decide what is net neutrality for India after due debate,” said Rajan Mathews, Director-General, Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI). “We must have a holistic approach to this issue. There should be rational debate, and we are committed for open and non-discriminatory Internet,” Mr Mathews added. A thought must go into protecting the interest of telecom operators as well, he felt.

While supporting net neutrality, analysts have voiced concern over its impact on the finances of telecos. “Net neutrality is a fair concept but it must take into account the concerns of telecom operators and ensure that their revenue and margins are not significantly impacted,” said Rajiv Gupta, Partner and Director, BCG. “Some kind of middle path needs to be achieved,” Mr Gupta said. Only a few countries so far have made net neutrality into a law. “We are yet to see whether our government’s moral support for net neutrality can translate into a law,” Mr Gupta added.

Surprisingly, Airtel which has come under flak on two occasions in last four months for alleged violation of net neutrality norms, too, has pledged its support for net neutrality! “Airtel fully supports the concept of net neutrality. There have been some misconceptions about our toll free data platform Airtel Zero. It is a not a tariff proposition but is an open marketing platform that allows any application or content provider to offer their service on a toll free basis to their customers who are on our network… The statement made by Flipkart regarding their decision not to offer toll-free data service to their customers is consistent with our stand that Airtel Zero is not a tariff proposition. It is merely an open platform for content providers to provide toll free-data services,” Airtel said. Without spelling out the future of Airtel Zero, it said “The platform remains open to all companies who want to offer these toll free data services to their customers on a completely non-discriminatory basis.” Over 150 start-ups have already expressed willingness to come on board Airtel Zero.

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society, said, “The need for net neutrality is very real and urgent. There are many practices that telecom companies are trying to engage in, such as blocking of WhatsApp to force customers to pay more money for it, which ought not to be allowed.” On Airtel Zero plan, he said “We should clearly separate out the issue of "zero rating" from that of "net neutrality". ``Only anti-competitive instances of zero-rating - for instance, Airtel offering it's own Hike service for free, or Airtel entering into an exclusive deal with Flipkart for zero-rating its app — are problems. Competitive zero-rating, with regulatory safeguards to ensure a fair and efficient marketplace, should be allowed, just as we allow free TV channels and allow toll-free numbers. Banning is akin to a brahmastra in a regulator's arsenal: it should not be used lightly,” Mr Prakash said.

No such plans: Snapdeal

Snapdeal said, “We have no such plans at this point, especially given the regulatory framework is unclear.’’

Zero rating is a practice among mobile network operators, where customers are not charged for a certain volume of data by specific applications or internet services.

An Amazon spokesperson said, “Amazon supports net neutrality - the fundamental openness of the Internet - which has been so beneficial to consumers and innovation.”

Earlier, Facebook and Reliance Communications had partnered for Internet.org. Reliance had announced in 2012 that it would offer free Facebook and WhatsApp for Rs 16 a month, without any additional data costs.

Amidst the debate on net neutrality, Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said a six-member panel had been constituted by the telecom department to submit its recommendations regarding the same by early next month.

Start-ups for net neutrality:

Sumit Jain, Co-Founder & CEO, CommonFloor.com

“It’s well acknowledged that Internet has disrupted the world of business like no other technology has in last few decades. It has enabled start-ups with hardly any capital and clout to make a mark. So by rejecting net neutrality, we will be shutting the door on the entrepreneurial aspirations of millions and will leave telcos to play the gate-keeper to a valuable resource as the Internet and challenges the democratic behaviour that Internet in known for”.

Sameer Parwani, CEO & Founder, CouponDunia

“We will stand for net neutrality. India has been in the forefront of digital world. It is the Internet that has given the country hope and aspirations to the common man to be informed and entertained. Not being able to give equal access will just make the situation anti- competitive and it will have a negative effect on the upcoming businesses.”

Kashyap Vadapalli, Chief Marketing officer, Pepperfry

“Lack of net neutrality supports a monopolistic market which will adversely affect the growing start-up eco-system. While heavily funded businesses will be able to maintain their supremacy over consumers start-ups will stand to lose out heavily. We do not encourage discrimination of any sorts when it comes to consumer's access to information.”

Yogendra Vasupal, Founder of Stayzilla

“Airtel Zero seems like an innovative solution to bring Internet to every person. Whether this is on a firm footing or a slippery slope will be decided by the actual implementation. The current way of individual companies buying Internet for their consumers is a slippery slope. The right way to do it would be through a central consortium formed from the e-commerce companies and who has the interests of both the start-ups in this sector and the end-users in mind. After all, Internet is all about freedom of choice. Keeping in mind that currently it would be free only if you use a particular company makes it free at the cost of the freedom of choice it offers. This is everyone's loss.”

Ritesh Agarwal, CEO, OYO Rooms

“Net neutrality is absolutely essential for a free and competitive market especially now since there is a start-up boom in the country particularly in the online sector. Most importantly, Internet was created to break boundaries and as concerned industry players, we should maintain that. We support net neutrality and will do all needed to build this further.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-lalatendu-mishra-pradeesh-chandran-april-15-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages

Net Neutrality debate in India: Here are all the arguments you need to know

praskrishna — 2015-05-09T08:01:20Z

While online activists and even big Internet companies have come out to support Net Neutrality, the debate isn’t really as simple when it comes to India.

The article by Shruti Dhapola was published in the Indian Express on April 23, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

If you are one of India’s active netizens, it is unlikely that the words Net Neutrality have escaped your daily dose of social media updates and news. The debate, which gained pace post AIB’s video on the topic and news of the Airtel Zero programme, has seen some of the biggest names in the Internet and media industries give their take on the issue. More importantly, last month India’s telecom regulator TRAI came out with a consultation paper on the growth of Over-the-top (OTT) players like WhatsApp or Skype and is looking at exploring a regulatory framework for these apps.

In essence, Net Neutrality implies that all Internet data pack should be treated equally, that there should be no fast or slow lanes for Internet, or that users should pay differently for accessing some websites. While online activists and even big Internet companies in India like ClearTrip, Flipkart, have come out to support Net Neutrality, the debate isn’t really as simple when it comes to India.

For starters, in a country like India, Net Neutrality has vast implications, especially for start-ups many of whom are dependent on the medium for the success of their business. A neutral Internet means a level playing field.

Rishabh Gupta, COO, Housing.com, says, “Net neutrality has played a significant role in keeping the internet a level-playing field, simplifying customer outreach for businesses across industries. Further, the platform has encouraged new age entrepreneurs to bring in innovative business models making technology as an integral part of business; be it banking, mobile payments, e-commerce, real estate, etc.”

Manav Sethi, Group CMO, Askme adds that “any violation of Internet Neutrality can have a serious bearing on effective and fair competition in the market place”.

“We feel it is the government’s responsibility to ensure a level playing field for home grown entrepreneurs and at the same time protect the interests of netizens,” says Sethi.

Where licensing is concerned, Internet activists have also pointed out that this just won’t work. Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at Centre for Internet and Society in India, says that India just can’t go back to the licensing days.

“OTT players aren’t just your Facebook or Viber, it’s the entire Internet. For instance with WebRTC protocol coming in you can do peer-to-peer chat, video calls on Web browsers. How would TRAI propose to regulate this, there’s no central service. It might not be popular, but it is being used by some already.”

He says the telecos’ argument about loss revenue due to rise of OTT’s isn’t a legitimate one but adds that instead of going for more regulation TRAI can look to reduce some differential regulations for telecos to make things easier for them.

There’s also a growing belief that TRAI hasn’t acted fairly when it comes to its paper on OTTs. The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) has slammed TRAI saying OTTs are already regulated and governed by the IT Act.

A statement issued by IAMAI President Subho Ray said: “It looks like TRAI, in its consultation paper, has copy-pasted from submissions of telcos. India has a robust and at times, overbearing IT Act.” Expressing support for Net Neutrality, his statement said, “the paper makes an assumption that Internet doesn’t come under any regulations, which is incorrect. All Internet companies are regulated by IT Act”.

IAMAI includes firms like Google, Facebook, Snapdeal, Ola, MakeMyTrip and Saavn as its members.

But TRAI has also come out to defend its the whole debate. TRAI chief Rahul Khullar had earlier told Indian Express, “There are passionate voices on both sides of the debate. And if that was not enough, there’s a corporate war going on between a media house and a telecom operator which is confounding already difficult matters.”

While TRAI’s paper has received criticism, it should be noted that the paper does devote a significant proportion to discussing Net Neutrality and the negative impact it could have if India overlooks the principle.

The paper says, “A policy decision to outright depart from “NN” (Net Neutrality) raises various antitrust and public interest issues. There are concerns that TSPs will discriminate against certain types of content and political opinions. Such practices may hurt consumers and diminish innovation in complementary sectors such as computer applications and content dissemination. Discriminatory pricing proposals, if implemented, could raise a variety of significant anti-competitive concerns.”

Discriminatory pricing proposals are what activists fear could take place if India abandons its stand on Net Neutrality, and users will be the one to suffer.

But there is counter-argument to the whole Net Neutrality debate. It states that in a country like India many still don’t have access to data or mobile Internet because it is expensive and that zero-ratings could be a possible solution.

Zero ratings ensure that a TSP or ISP could declare a service or an app as free, and usually these are services that the company has tied-up with. The Facebook-Reliance initiative under the Internet.org initiative is a Zero rating system, where the idea was to provide certain services like Facebook, ClearTrip, NDTV, etc for free for users in certain part of the country. A benevolent scheme no doubt, but a violation of Net Neutrality all the same. Thanks to the furor over Net Neutrality, ClearTrip and others have started pulling out of Internet.org.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has defended Internet.org saying while network operators shouldn’t discriminate between services, “for people who are not on the internet though, having some connectivity and some ability to share is always much better than having no ability to connect and share at all. That’s why programs like Internet.org are important and can co-exist with net neutrality regulations.”

Zuckerberg isn’t the only one making an argument for Zero-rating apps. In a paper for Brookings Institute, Darrell M. West argues that zero-rating apps can actually help improve data access to those who can’t afford it.

As an example, the paper points out how “in Paraguay, an Internet.org project has generated an increase in “the number of people using the internet by 50% over the course of the partnership and [an] increase [in the] daily data usage by more than 50%.” In addition to this the paper says that, African nations have reported substantial upticks in Internet usage following introduction of Facebook Zero.

Interestingly, some countries like Chile have banned Zero ratings because they violate Net Neutrality. Pranesh Prakash says that the argument given in favour of ‘zero ratings’ is a bogus one.

Prakash says, “Exclusive deals like Flipkart-Airtel, or Reliance or Facebook or even free Wikipedia, end-up becoming anti-competitive. Discriminatory deals should not be allowed or those that become anti-competitive under Section 3 of Competition act should not be allowed.”

“If zero-rating can exist in an environment of competition, only then it’s a good thing,” he adds.

But government stepping-in isn’t entirely unexpected. Sajai Singh, Partner at J Sagar Associates Law Firm, points out that the government has now woken up to a new disruptive technology. He gives an example of cable television saying that when it first came up in India, the government had no laws to deal with cable.

“This is another example of the government playing catch up and it happens all across the world. It’ll happen more often with newer disruptive technologies like robotics, artificial intelligence. For instance, when the driverless car comes the government will have to bring in some legislation,” he adds.

For now, TRAI has received over 7-8 lakh comments on the discussion paper that they had first put up on their site on 27 March.

It is fair to argue that Net Neutrality has helped preserve the Internet’s free and open character in India and that a deviation from the same will hurt users the most. Then there’s the very real picture that India needs to provide Internet access to more of its citizens especially those who can’t afford it. For TRAI, treading a fine line between the two will prove to be a real challenge.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/indian-express-april-23-2015-net-neutrality-debate-in-india

Net Neutrality and Privacy

divij — 2014-03-20T05:01:58Z

The highly contentious and polarising debate on net-neutrality will have a large impact on shaping the future of the internet and ultimately on the users of the internet. One important issue which needs to be prioritized while debating the necessity or desirability of a legal regime which advocates net-neutrality is its implication on privacy.

The principle behind net-neutrality, simply put, is that the data being transmitted to and from the user should be treated equally, i.e. that data carriage, at the level of ISP’s, should be ‘dumb’. This would mean that internet service providers cannot discriminate between different data based on the content of the data. Without the principle of net-neutrality being followed, ISP’s would become the ‘internet gatekeepers’, choosing what data gets to reach the end-user and how. There are many arguments for favouring or disfavouring net-neutrality, however, advocates of privacy on the internet should be wary of the possible implications of endorsing a non-neutral internet and allowing greater network management by ISP’s. So, how does the net-neutrality debate affect privacy?

It all depends upon what kind of network management ISP’s employ. Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) is a method of data inspection which allows the network manager to scrutinize data at the application level, and in real time. As compared to shallow packet inspection, which identifies based on headers like IP addresses or protocols like TCP and UDP, which are analogous to envelopes on a letter, DPI would be akin to having access to the contents. DPI-based network management can identify the programs, software and applications being used, and what they are being used for in real time. Unlike any ordinary online service provider ISP’s are in the unique position of having comprehensive access to all of their customers’ data. Allowing DPI-based network management for prioritizing certain data or applications, an almost certain outcome if net-neutrality is weakened, would mean that ISP’s would be able to intercept and scrutinize any and all user data, which would reveal substantial information about the user, and would be a serious blow to privacy. While DPI can have several benefits in its application (such as finding and fighting malware or viruses), but where it is used, must be for a targeted and legitimate aim. Even where DPI is not used, if network discrimination is allowed, based on a user-to-user basis it would require inspecting the IP addresses of the user, which can also be a problematic intrusion of privacy, especially since the ISP also has other data like addresses and names of users which it can use to identify them.

Privacy may not necessarily be affected through non-neutral internet systems, but in all probability, with the growth of systems like the DPI and commercial incentives for “gatekeeper ISP’s” who are in a position to profit greatly from an ability to scrutinize and discriminate between data, it is likely that it will. In India, though government ISP’s like MTNL and BSNL deny using DPI,[1] it’s likely that it is still applied by others, and that the government is aware of this (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2161541/indian-isps-block-104-websites). Even as the TRAI advocates and supports net-neutrality, Indian ISP’s seem to be heading the other way.[2] Before the trend becomes the norm, it’s high time for a comprehensive discussion about how policies should be framed for keeping the internet a more neutral, and more private, space.

References

Apar Gupta, TRAI(ing) to keep it neutral, http://www.iltb.net/2010/09/traiing-keep-it-neutral/
For a lay discussion on Deep Packet Inspection and net-neutrality, visit http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/07/deep-packet-inspection-meets-net-neutrality/

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

Net Neutrality Advocates Rejoice As TRAI Bans Differential Pricing

subha — 2016-02-23T02:10:42Z

India would not see any more Free Basics advertisements on billboards with images of farmers and common people explaining how much they benefited from this Facebook project.

The article by Subhashish Panigrahi was published by Odisha TV on February 9, 2016.

Because the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has taken a historical step by banning differential pricing without discriminating services. In their notes TRAI has explained, “In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users’ internet experience.” Not just that, violation of this ban would cost Rs. 50,000 every day.

Facebook planned to launch Free Basics in India by making a few websites – mostly partners with Facebook—available for free. The company not just advertised aggressively on bill boards and commercials across the nation, it also embedded a campaign inside Facebook asking users to vote in support of Free Basics. TRAI criticized Facebook’s attempt to manipulate public opinion. Facebook was also heavily challenged by many policy and internet advocates including non-profits like Free Software Movement of India and Savetheinternet.in campaign. The two collectives strongly discouraged Free Basics by moulding public opinion against it with Savetheinternet.in alone used to send over 2.4 million emails to TRAI to disallow Free Basics. Furthermore, 500 Indian start-ups, including major names like Cleartrip, Zomato, Practo, Paytm and Cleartax, also wrote to India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi requesting continued support for Net Neutrality – a concept that advocates equal treatment of websites – on Republic Day. Stand-up comedians like Abish Mathew and groups like All India Bakchod and East India Comedy created humorous but informative videos explaining the regulatory debate and supporting net neutrality. Both went viral.

Technology critic and Quartz writer Alice Truong reacted to Free Basics saying; “Zuckerberg almost portrays net neutrality as a first-world problem that doesn’t apply to India because having some service is better than no service.”

The decision of the Indian government has been largely welcomed in the country and outside. In support of the move, Web We Want programme manager at the World Wide Web Foundation Renata Avila has said; “As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world. It follows a precedent set by Chile, the United States, and others which have adopted similar net neutrality safeguards. The message is clear: We can’t create a two-tier Internet – one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web.”

There are mixed responses on the social media, both in support and in opposition to the TRAI decision. Josh Levy, Advocacy Director at Accessnow, has appreciated saying, “India is now the global leader on #NetNeutrality. New rules are stronger than those in EU and US.”

Had differential pricing been allowed, it would have affected start-ups and content-based smaller companies adversely as they could never have managed to pay the high price to a partner service provider to make their service available for free. On the other hand, tech-giants like Facebook could have easily managed to capture the entire market. Since the inception, the Facebook-run non-profit Internet.org has run into a lot of controversies because of the hidden motive behind the claimed support for social cause.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/odisha-tv-february-9-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-net-neutrality-advocates-rejoice-as-trai-bans-differential-pricing

Net neutrality advocates hail Trai verdict

praskrishna — 2016-02-14T11:16:45Z

Facebook 'disappointed' with the ruling on differential pricing.

The article by Alnoor Peermohamed appeared in the Business Standard on February 9, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

India has demonstrated what a forward looking and pro-net neutrality policy looks like, experts and net neutrality advocates said after the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) turned down a proposal to allow differential pricing services to function in the country.

“This ruling has happened in the face of enormous lobbying on the one side by very large companies and a ragtag bunch of people on the other. In spite of that, to see the right thing has prevailed, which is in the national interest and not what was masqueraded as national interest is very gratifying. This has not often taken place in policy making in India,” says Sharad Sharma, convenor, iSPIRT, a lobby group for indigenous software product firms.

Net neutrality activists across the world have lauded Trai’s decision not to allow large firms such as Facebook and Airtel to divide the Internet and offer selected services for free to consumers. The one year-long fight that began when Airtel proposed to offer internet companies the chance to offer customers their services for free, ended in Trai stipulating fines of Rs 50,000 a day for companies offering differential pricing services, which is capped at Rs 50 lakh.

“This has resulted now in the most expensive and stringent regulation on differential pricing that exists anywhere in the world. Activists around the world would be looking to India and will definitely be using this landmark order to fight against zero rating elsewhere,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a think tank.

Facebook, which was one of the biggest stakeholders in the drive to allow differential pricing services in the country, said it was disappointed with the ruling. The firm has been accused of supporting net neutrality in the US, but standing in its way in India to get permissions to provide its Free Basics platform in India.

“Our goal with Free Basics is to bring more people online with an open, non-exclusive and free platform. While disappointed with the outcome, we’ll continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the internet and the opportunities it brings,” Facebook said in a statement.

Nikhil Pahwa, founder of Medianama, who ran a campaign called Savetheinternet against Facebook’s Free Basics called this a victory to the youth of India, saying “this outcome indicates what happens when young people actually participate in a governance process”.

According to Pahwa, there’s far too much cynicism about governments not doing the right thing. “We hope this is the beginning of something new: of people believing that they can make a difference, and persevering towards helping form policies that ensure equity and freedom for everyone.”

He added: “There are many internet-related issues that have still to be looked at, especially internet shutdowns, censorship and the encryption policy. These impact all of us, and we should be ready to voice our point of view, and the government looks like it is listening.”

India’s software sector lobby group Nasscom, which had stood against Facebook’s Free Basics platform and for net neutrality in general congratulated Trai for its ruling to disallow zero-rating and differential pricing services in the country.

“Our submission highlighted the importance of net neutrality principles, non-discriminatory access and transparent business models aligned to the goal of enhancing internet penetration in the country. The Trai announcement resounds with the submission made by Nasscom and we would like to congratulate Trai for enshrining the principles of net neutrality,” R Chandrashekhar, president of Nasscom, said in a statement.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-february-9-2016-alnoor-peermohamed-net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict

Net Neutrality across South Asia

praskrishna — 2016-02-27T08:09:29Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) and the Observer Research Foundation in association with Centre for Global Communication Studies, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennnsylvania and Internet Policy Observatory is organizing this event at the Observer Research Foundation's office in New Delhi from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., on December 12, 2015.

Context

Net neutrality can broadly be understood as the principle of non-discrimination which in practice allows the internet to be free and open by preventing service providers from slowing or interfering with the transfer of data. Net neutrality has risen as a global policy issue, yet cultural, political, commercial, and economical factors influence how net neutrality is understood and addressed in a particular context. Indeed, the factors driving the net neutrality debate, the way in which governments are addressing net neutrality, the role and response of industry, the public response, and the role of civil society has been varied across contexts. The topic of net neutrality is not limited to a technical debate and brings together a number of issues including the right to access, the right to freedom of expression, fair competition practices, and privacy.

This conference seeks to bring together domain experts, industry, government, and civil society across South Asia to understand how net neutrality is understood in different contexts, how it is being addressed from a policy point of view, what the varying public dialogues around net neutrality are, and what role civil society can play in influencing the debate.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/net-neutrality-across-south-asia

Net nanny meets muscular law

Admin — 2018-10-02T05:48:32Z

India’s new human-trafficking bill could criminalise sex workers and curtail free speech.

The article by Laxmi Murthy was published in Himal South Asian on September 26, 2018.

When conservative morality is armed with the law and prejudice is given legal validity, the state is transformed into a wet nurse cum security guard. The Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill 2018, passed on 26 July in the lower house of the Indian Parliament, represents a growing trend of increased state surveillance and control, and a carceral approach to dealing with non-compliance with overbroad and vague laws laced with prudery.

Trafficking in persons, as defined by the United Nations, is “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons” by coercion, deception or the abuse of power or position for the purpose of exploitation. Human trafficking is considered to be a form of modern-day slavery and is outlawed in most countries.

Following the ratification of the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others in 1949, India enacted the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956. However, nowhere was trafficking clearly defined in the law. The acronym of this law, SITA, seemingly deliberately modelled after Sita, the chaste wife of Rama from the epic Ramayana, reinforced the moralism already codified into law. Moving from suppression to prevention of ‘immoral’ trafficking took three decades, but the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA), as the act was renamed in 1986, continued to prioritise morality over human rights, focusing its attention on raiding brothels and “rescuing and rehabilitating” sex workers, whether or not they wanted such intervention. Though sex work is not illegal per se in India – with some notable exceptions with respect to soliciting in public places – the ITPA views consensual adult sex work as a misnomer and approaches all women in sex work as victims in need of rescue. This ultimately criminalises even consenting adult sex workers by treating solicitation, brothel ownership and procurement as criminal activity.

Unfortunately, the 2018 trafficking bill has been drafted with this very mindset, and goes on to widen the scope to cover “aggravated” forms of trafficking, including trafficking for the purpose of forced labour, begging, trafficking by administering chemical substance or hormones for early sexual maturity among other things. It also includes in its ambit trafficking for the purpose of surrogacy, at a time when questions around commercial surrogacy and consent of surrogates have yet to be settled in Indian law.

The bill also aims to unify existing criminal law provisions on trafficking. The definition of trafficking in the Indian law is drawn primarily from Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which includes ‘any act’ of physical exploitation, sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery and servitude. Trafficking under this bill also includes begging and domestic work. However, critics of the bill, including a collective of sex-worker-rights groups and organisations working with bonded labour, children and adolescents under the banner of the Coalition for an Inclusive Approach on the Trafficking Bill, say that the bill, with its criminalised approach, will further stigmatise sex workers, transgender persons and beggars. The supposed ‘victims’ of trafficking would, therefore, be forcibly rescued, rehabilitated and repatriated, and denied their chosen residence as well as their means of livelihood. The elaborate anti-trafficking bureaucracy to be set up at district, state and national levels seems unwieldy and without representation of the communities it purports to protect.

Cross-purposes

The anti-trafficking bill embodies a constitutional conundrum: in attempting to fulfil the mandate under Article 23 of the Constitution – to protect persons from exploitation inherent in human trafficking – it can potentially violate fundamental freedoms, in particular, the freedom of speech and expression, a core protection guaranteed by Article 19.

According to Section 39 (2) of the bill, “Whoever solicits or publicises electronically, taking or distributing obscene photographs or videos or providing materials or soliciting or guiding tourists or using agents or any other form which may lead to the trafficking of a person shall be punished (emphasis added)”.

This provision, while intending to criminalise online soliciting, casts a wide net and prescribes penalties – rigorous imprisonment for a term of five to ten years and a fine between INR 50,000 (USD 700) and INR 100,000 (USD 1400) – for vaguely defined acts which may lead to trafficking. It is not necessary, as per this provision, to prove a direct causal link between these acts – such as distributing obscene photographs or providing materials – and the actual crime of trafficking. Such a broad brush is highly problematic and violates well-established tenets of criminal jurisprudence which require criminal intention (mens rea) along with the actual criminal act (actus reus). That is, a criminal act must be accompanied by a criminal intention. Without any burden to prove a causal link, anything deemed to potentially lead to trafficking can be proscribed – for example, any artistic work, academic publication or cinematic representation.

Sexually explicit content – text, audio and visual – has evoked deeply contentious opinions right from the time of the Kamasutra and the erotic sculptures of the Khajuraho temples. There is no one single position on pornography or obscenity among feminists, despite their shared concern about enhancing women’s rights and stopping exploitation. On the one hand, American feminist Robin Morgan’s famous pronouncement back in 1974, that pornography is the theory and rape is the practice, implying that pornography was directly responsible for violence and sexual abuse of women, influenced early feminists the world over, and continues to hold sway among sections of women’s rights advocates. However, while images undoubtedly impact on the human psyche, the causal links between pornography and rape are not established firmly enough to warrant censorship and bans. On the other hand, sex-positive feminists who celebrate varied expressions of sexual desire, especially female sexuality, advocates of feminist pornography (which is not seen as a contradiction in terms), adult entertainers and sex workers have practiced and theorised sexual desire and its many manifestations in ways that are undergirded by consent, respect, agency and autonomy, but not necessarily confined to contemporary social mores. Conversations around sexuality and desire have moved beyond criminalisation of what is considered deviant, but echoes of these conversations do not seem to have been heard in the corridors of the Parliament.

With the prevalent moral disapproval of pornography and adult entertainment, the phrase “taking or distributing obscene photographs or videos or providing materials” can easily be misinterpreted as leading to trafficking. The word ‘obscene’ is itself too subjective and culturally loaded a term to withstand rigorous legal scrutiny. It is a no-brainer that deciding what is aesthetically pleasing erotica and what is unacceptable pornography is in the eye of the beholder and is, therefore, subjective. Where there is no requirement to prove intention, or mens rea, any image or video deemed to be obscene can be censored. This could bring into its ambit online material, articles, literature, magazines as well as artists and their work, and consenting adult sexual interactions in the digital space including adult dating apps like Tinder or OkCupid.

It was only as recently as 2014 that India’s Supreme Court jettisoned the archaic Hicklin Test, which was developed in an 1868 case in England to determine whether specific material could “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such influences”. This outdated standard was applied, for instance, in the landmark case of Udeshi v State of Maharashtra in 1964 to uphold the ban on the D H Lawrence classic Lady Chatterley’s Lover and to convict Ranjit Udeshi, a bookseller, under Section 292 of the IPC for distributing “obscene” material.

Half a century on, in 2014, Anand Bazaar Patrika, publishers of Sportsworld, a magazine which reprinted a nude photograph of tennis champion Boris Becker and his fiancée, won the case in the apex court which rejected the Hicklin Test. However, the court adopted a ‘community standards’ test derived from the 1957 Roth v United States case that determined what was obscene and was, therefore, unprotected by the First Amendment to the American Constitution that protects freedom of speech. The ‘community standards’ test has itself been challenged for its vagueness, since what is considered to have social importance is itself variable. In addition, the Supreme Court in the Sportsworld case allowed the nude photograph because, in the court’s view, it did not have “a tendency to arouse feeling or reveal an overt sexual desire”. The nude photograph of a white-skinned Becker with his dark-skinned fiancée was deemed to be in the public interest, as its intention was to cast a spotlight on racism and apartheid. However, the justification that the photo did not arouse sexual desire and was, therefore, acceptable, is both highly subjective and problematic in its criminalisation of sexual desire, in that it allows – without any evidence whatsoever – the dangerous possibility of nudity having a causal effect on violence.

Stormy seas and safe harbours

The Trafficking Bill 2018 in its “offences related to media” chapter, continues in its inexorable march towards criminalisation on the basis of vague definitions. According to Section 36, a person is said to be engaged in trafficking of person even if that person “advertises, publishes, prints, broadcasts or distributes, or causes the advertisement, publication, printing or broadcast or distribution by any means, including the use of information technology or any brochure, flyer or any propaganda material that promotes trafficking of person or exploitation of a trafficked person in any manner.”

However, since “promoting trafficking or exploitation” has not been clearly defined, it makes room for different interpretations of liability. There is little in this provision that attempts to impose a clear, rigorous standard of evidence that could demonstrate direct cause. The Bengaluru-based non-profit Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) cautions that, under this clause, the likelihood of authors of adult material, videographers, filmmakers and internet sites being charged with promoting trafficking or exploitation is quite high, since the clause might build a legal link between hosting or producing pornography and trafficking.

Clamping down on internet freedom on the basis of obscenity is not new. In July 2015, the government banned 857 websites that it considered pornographic. This followed the Kamlesh Vaswani case in the Supreme Court where the then chief justice of India expressed his inability to order a ban as it would go against the right to personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution. In their submission challenging the ban, and underlining the subjectivity in viewing and interpreting content, the Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) said, “one man’s pornography is another man’s high art”, making it impossible for them to ban any sites. The ISPs were later told that they should ban only sites showing child pornography, but they submitted that they neither created content nor owned it and that it was not possible for them to view content before hosting it. And therein lies one of the most controversial features of the trafficking bill.

The most pernicious provision of the bill, Section 41 (2), displays a complete lack of understanding of the manner in which the digital space functions. The section penalises anyone who “distributes, or sells or stores, in any form in any electronic or printed form showing incidence of sexual exploitation, sexual assault, or rape for the purpose of exploitation or for coercion of the victim or his family members, or for unlawful gain.”

As the CIS critique of the bill points out, digital infrastructure requires third party intermediaries to handle information during transmission, storage or display. As it is not always desirable or even practically possible to verify the legality of every bit of data that gets transferred or stored by the intermediary, the CIS points out, the law provides ‘safe harbours’ to protect intermediaries from liability, ensuring that entities that act as architectural requirements and intermediary platforms are able to operate smoothly and without fear. It must be noted that users who upload and initiate transfer of information online, are not always the same parties who are directly involved in transmission of content.

In India, immunity from liability or a ‘safe harbour’ for intermediaries involved with transmission or temporary storage of content is currently provided by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act), on condition that they: (i) act as a mere ‘conduit’ and do not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of the transmission, or select or modify the information contained in the transmission and (ii) exercise due diligence, which has been defined under the law. The provision for safe harbours has also been tested in court, notably in the case of the virtual market Baazee.com (later acquired by eBay), which had hosted an advertisement for an ‘obscene’ video for two days before it was taken down. The court held that the IT Act would prevail over the IPC, and the managers could not be held liable for the content of the advertisement.

With Section 59 of the proposed trafficking bill set to override existing legislation, the provision of safe harbours under the IT Act will be in jeopardy. Notably, this move to prosecute internet intermediaries is in keeping with a worldwide trend. In April 2018, the United States President Donald Trump signed into law two controversial pieces of legislation aimed to tackle human trafficking online, which have grave implications for free speech. The US Congress bill, the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), and the Senate bill, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA), have been welcomed by some as a victory for victims of sex trafficking. Alarmingly, however, the bills, better known by their acronyms FOSTA-SESTA, create an exception to the safe harbour rule, ie Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA). This provision, which is regarded as a landmark protection, says “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” For over two decades, in the spirit of actualising the immense potential of the digital space to share information, ideas and opinions, this section has provided immunity for intermediaries, allowing users to freely generate content without making platforms and ISPs accountable for such content.

Under FOSTA-SESTA, however, websites are liable to be penalised for advertisements promoting consensual adult sex work, dating or escort services (such as Backpage.com or Craigslist) which could be deemed to promote trafficking. Sex-worker-rights activists in the US posit that such an unwarranted clampdown on these avenues through which adult sex workers could safely screen clients and avoid potentially dangerous situations, is putting them at risk.

Despite the protests against the impact of FOSTA-SESTA on the internet and free expression, parliamentarians in the United Kingdom seem set to follow a similar regulatory route. An All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade in July 2018 called for a ban on “prostitution websites”, by which they mean virtual advertising sites such as Vivastreet and Adultwork which host adult advertisements. Anticipating the same fallout as in the US, Amnesty UK tweeted, “Taking down these platforms will push sex workers deeper underground exposing them to greater risks of violence, exploitation and trafficking.”

Beyond criminalisation

According to Interpol, trafficking in human beings is a multi-billion-dollar international criminal industry, which is usually carried out for forced labour, sexual exploitation or for harvesting of tissue, cells and organs. Despite this recognition of the different motives for trafficking, the crime has largely been linked – in the popular imagination, media and, unfortunately, even law enforcement – to sexual exploitation. The thrust of anti-trafficking efforts in India, post-Independence, set the stage for decades of human-rights violations in the name of anti-trafficking, using an ineffective law that penalised victims more than traffickers. The proposed bill, with its ill-conceived criminalised regime, is likely to do more harm than good, and give rise to a repressive regime that is not in the interests of marginalised populations most vulnerable to traffickers. Not only is the bill unlikely to make any dent in the organised trafficking networks, but the fallout of its provisions policing the internet is also likely to hamper freedom of expression and consensual, adult sexual activity mediated through the digital space.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/himal-south-asian-laxmi-murthy-net-nanny-meets-muscular-law

NET LOSS

praskrishna — 2012-06-25T06:15:06Z

Unless the IT Act is amended and the definition of ‘offensive’ online content clearly set out, attempts to gag the Internet will continue in our country, argues Abimanyu Nagarajan

The article was published in the Telegraph on June 20, 2012

Lately, the Indian government seems to be trying its best to control the Internet. In the past few weeks, dozens of file hosting or sharing sites have been blocked by court order. Earlier this year Union human resource development minister, Kapil Sibal, came down heavily on social networking sites and the Internet and waxed eloquent on the need to weed out “offensive” content there.

In fact, this week Google said that there was a 49 per cent increase in requests for content removal from India in the second half of 2011 compared to the first half. Of the 101 requests to take down 255 items, only five were made by the courts. The rest were by politicians and policemen.

In the now infamous cartoon case, a professor of Calcutta’s Jadavpur University was arrested for circulating a cartoon relating to chief minister Mamata Banerjee via email. One of the charges levelled against him was that he was culpable under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Indeed, experts feel that the IT Act and its vague and loose definition of what constitutes “offensive” content on the Net or on a social networking site can easily be abused by those who wish to control online content.

Everything related to the Internet comes under the purview of the IT Act. As cyber law expert Pavan Duggal says, “The IT Act, 2000, covers all aspects pertaining to the use of computers, computer systems, computer networks, computer resources, communication devices as also data and information in the electronic format.”

Social networking sites and what gets posted there also come under the act. Section 2(1)(w) of the act uses the term “intermediary” to mean any legal entity that receives, stores or transmits a message, or provides any service with respect to that message on behalf of another person. By this definition social networking sites are “intermediaries” and there are strict sets of rules and guidelines listed under Section 43(a) of the act that they have to follow if they want to operate in India.

But what infuriates IT experts most is Section 66A of the IT Act, which leaves the term “offensive” utterly vague and fluid. It states: “Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.”

In addition, Rule 3 of the IT Intermediaries Guidelines, 2011, lays down that all Internet service providers, telecom companies, email and blogging services must take down content that is “harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory…”. In fact, this provision allows you to send a takedown notice for any content that may have offended you and the item has to be deleted within 36 hours.

This is draconian, say IT experts. As Prashant Mali, a cyber law expert and president of Cyber Law Consulting, puts it, “The problem is that the offences listed under Section 66A are non-bailable, cognisable offenses. Technically speaking, since nothing is specific, you can always be arrested.”

Adds advocate Apar Gupta, a partner at law firm Advani and Company, “Section 66A is vague and stringent at the same time.”

The extent to which these provisions in the IT Act can be abused was recently demonstrated by the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet Society (CIS). Sunil Abraham, executive director of CIS, talks about how the group flagged content as being offensive on a variety of sites, even though they weren’t so.

“We sent takedown notices to e-commerce, content hosting, and news media sites,” recalls Abraham. “And in most cases, we found the intermediaries were very risk averse. For example, there was one site that was talking about game theory — a mathematics model on decision making. As part of the article, they had linked out to a few gambling sites to support their research. We sent notices saying that the site promoted gambling and was therefore offensive. They didn’t just remove the links, they took the whole site down.”

Mahesh Murthy, CEO of Pinstorm, a digital advertising firm, points out that this means individuals are being allowed to do what should ideally be done by a court of law. “People who are not part of the judiciary, who are not elected officials, are taking decisions on censorship.”

Gupta reveals that the sites are not even required to inform a user that their content is being taken down. “The content vanishes into a black hole. All they have to do is remove the flagged content within 36 hours of it being reported,” he says.

IT experts have been crying themselves hoarse demanding that the government amends the IT Act and clearly sets out definitions for what constitutes “offensive” content. As Duggal says, “It will do immense service to the nation if the IT Act, 2000, is amended so as to provide more definitions, illustrations and parameters of what constitutes offensive content. Since the act is silent on what constitutes offensive material, the scope for abuse of Section 66A remains wide open.”

So will the government heed the demand of cyber law professionals and other experts and amend the IT Act? That remains to be seen. But unless the government changes its posture vis-à-vis the Internet, and shifts from its position that it’s something that needs to be controlled, few believe that an amendment in this regard will be forthcoming any time soon.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/net-loss

Net Gain

praskrishna — 2011-08-29T11:52:54Z

The draft Electronic Service Delivery Bill, 2011, is aimed at making government services available online. But there are many hurdles to bringing in effective e-governance, says Hemchhaya De

At a time when India is hotly debating the Lokpal Bill, another significant piece of legislation is about to make its way to Parliament this monsoon session. The government has mooted the draft Electronic Service Delivery Bill, 2011, to ensure that all ministries and government departments provide their services to citizens online.

The bill, drafted by the department of information technology (DIT) under the ministry of communication and information technology, could have far-reaching benefits for citizens. If implemented, one would no longer have to stand in long queues, make frequent trips to government offices and deal with red tape in order to procure even such basic documents as driving licences or land record copies.

Of course, the key question is whether the necessary infrastructure will be in place to allow citizens to access these services via the electronic mode. In a country where active Internet user penetration in rural areas is as low as 2.13 per cent, the feasibility of e-governance depends on the state providing enough number of access centres.

E-governance is not a completely new concept in India. The Centre laid down an ambitious National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) in 2006 and roped in industry bodies like Nasscom to facilitate the delivery of e-services. According to a Nasscom report, there has been substantial progress in NeGP. Of the 1,100 services targeted under the plan, over 600 services in both government-to-citizen (G2C) and government-to-business (G2B) domains across central ministries and state departments can now be accessed electronically.

However, many experts feel that the NeGP has not lived up to its promise. "Progress in NeGP has been slow," says Subhash Bhatnagar, honorary adjunct professor at IIM, Ahmedabad, and member of the steering committee of the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-17) for the communication and IT and information sector.

That said, some states have been running successful e-government projects. “Take Karnataka’s online delivery and management of land records,” says Bhatnagar. “The online system offers services to ordinary people on a first-come, first-served basis without subjecting them to the whims and fancies of babus.”

However, Karnataka is an exception rather than the rule and many states are lagging behind when it comes to extending e-governance. “IIM, Ahmedabad, carried out an e-governance impact assessment study in 12 states. West Bengal is one state which hasn’t fared well and it figures in the bottom half of the list,” reveals Bhatnagar.

The draft Electronic Service Delivery Bill aims to exert pressure on states and government departments to fully automate or computerise their services to citizens. Crucially, it sets a clear time limit for delivering online services. The bill says, “every competent authority of the appropriate Government” is required to publish or specify the services that will be digitised within six months from the commencement of the law. “If there’s any delay, departments have to explain it in writing,” says a senior official of the DIT who does not wish to be named.

The bill further mandates that all public services should be delivered in electronic modes within five years from the commencement of the law. This period may be extended by not more than three years.

In addition to a grievance redressal mechanism, the bill proposes setting up a Central Electronic Service Delivery Commission to enforce the provisions of the law. The commission should comprise a central chief commissioner and not more than two central commissioners — all of whom shall have “worked as secretary or equivalent level… either in the central government or in the state government”.

Many experts feel that the proposed legislation is a step in the right direction. “The bill will reduce red tape and promote efficient services in various government departments,” says Payal Chawla, partner, Hemant Sahai Associates, a Delhi-based law firm. “The time limit of five years with an extension of a maximum of three years to bring all the services in the purview of the legislation is well-intended.”

Agrees Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based organisation which carries out research in IT. “The bill ensures that government departments publicly commit to Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and demonstrate compliance to these SLAs,” he says. “Like the RTI Act, there is an office of the central chief commissioner which can penalise officials who don’t provide electronic services or comply with their own SLAs.”

But others argue that the bill is too open-ended. “I’d have liked to see the services specified clearly,” says Neel Ratan, executive director, PricewaterhouseCoopers. “Just starting an e-service isn’t enough — the quality or level of performance of the service needs to be ascertained as well. The bill seems to be silent on how quality can be ensured.”

Bhatnagar too feels that the draft bill should have first clearly defined what “electronic service delivery” is all about. All it says is “electronic service delivery means the delivery of services through electronic mode including, inter alia, the receipt of forms and applications, issue or grant of any licence, permit, certificate, sanction or approval and the receipt or payment of money”.

However, electronic delivery of services should encompass all end-to-end steps necessary for delivering the service, points out Bhatnagar. “Receiving an application, receiving supporting documents, receiving payment of various fees, issue of licence/receipts/certificates/ documents such as ration cards and passports and payment of dues to citizens should be web enabled. Citizens who wish to carry out the transaction through a portal without having to visit a government office should be able to do so,” he says.

Furthermore, says Bhatnagar, government agencies should ensure that every citizen has access to a public service delivery centre (government owned or private) from where he or she can access such services. And a person shouldn’t have to travel more than 10km to access these services.

Experts say there are several hurdles to e-governance in India. “The domestic IT industry has not focussed on this important market and services have been decentralised without ensuring common standards. So different states may be using different software, which can make the whole system messy and lead to uneven and poor quality projects,” says Abraham of CIS. “We are still very far away from the sophistication of G2C and G2B systems currently deployed in many Western countries.”

In sum, enacting a law to bring in complete e-governance may not be enough. Without the necessary investment in the country’s technology infrastructure, the initiative, however well-intended, may never truly get off the ground.

Graphic by Mantashir Iqbal Shaikh

This article by Hemchhaya De was published in the Telegraph on 24 August 2011. The original can be read here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/net-gain

Net Freedom Campaign Loses its Way

sunil — 2014-05-27T11:07:04Z

A recent global meet was a victory for governments and the private sector over civil society interests.

The article was published in the Hindu Businessline on May 10, 2014.

One word to describe NetMundial: Disappointing! Why? Because despite the promise, human rights on the Internet are still insufficiently protected. Snowden’s revelations starting last June threw the global Internet governance processes into crisis.

Things came to a head in October, when Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, horrified to learn that she was under NSA surveillance for economic reasons, called for the organisation of a global conference called NetMundial to accelerate Internet governance reform.

The NetMundial was held in São Paulo on April 23-24 this year. The result was a statement described as “the non-binding outcome of a bottom-up, open, and participatory process involving … governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia from around the world.” In other words — it is international soft law with no enforcement mechanisms.

The statement emerges from “broad consensus”, meaning governments such as India, Cuba and Russia and civil society representatives expressed deep dissatisfaction at the closing plenary. Unlike an international binding law, only time will tell whether each member of the different stakeholder groups will regulate itself.

Again, not easy, because the outcome document does not specifically prescribe what each stakeholder can or cannot do — it only says what internet governance (IG) should or should not be. And finally, there’s no global consensus yet on the scope of IG. The substantive consensus was disappointing in four important ways:

Mass surveillance : Civil society was hoping that the statement would make mass surveillance illegal. After all, global violation of the right to privacy by the US was the raison d'être of the conference.

Instead, the statement legitimised “mass surveillance, interception and collection” as long as it was done in compliance with international human rights law. This was clearly the most disastrous outcome.

Access to knowledge: The conference was not supposed to expand intellectual property rights (IPR) or enforcement of these rights. After all, a multilateral forum, WIPO, was meant to address these concerns. But in the days before the conference the rights-holders lobby went into overdrive and civil society was caught unprepared.

The end result — “freedom of information and access to information” or right to information in India was qualified “with rights of authors and creators”. The right to information laws across the world, including in India, contains almost a dozen exemptions, including IPR. The only thing to be grateful for is that this limitation did not find its way into the language for freedom of expression.

Intermediary liability: The language that limits liability for intermediaries basically provides for a private censorship regime without judicial oversight, and without explicit language protecting the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Even though the private sector chants Hillary Clinton's Internet freedom mantra — they only care for their own bottomlines.

Net neutrality: Even though there was little global consensus, some optimistic sections of civil society were hoping that domestic best practice on network neutrality in Brazil’s Internet Bill of Right — also known as Marco Civil, that was signed into law during the inaugural ceremony of NetMundial — would make it to the statement. Unfortunately, this did not happen.

For almost a decade since the debate between the multi-stakeholder and multilateral model started, the multi-stakeholder model had produced absolutely nothing outside ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a non-profit body), its technical fraternity and the standard-setting bodies.

The multi-stakeholder model is governance with the participation (and consent — depending on who you ask) of those stakeholders who are governed. In contrast, in the multilateral system, participation is limited to nation-states.

Civil society divisions

The inability of multi-stakeholderism to deliver also resulted in the fragmentation of global civil society regulars at Internet Governance Forums.

But in the run-up to NetMundial more divisions began to appear. If we ignore nuances — we could divide them into three groups. One, the ‘outsiders’ who are best exemplified by Jérémie Zimmermann of the La Quadrature du Net. Jérémie ran an online campaign, organised a protest during the conference and did everything he could to prevent NetMundial from being sanctified by civil society consensus.

Two, the ‘process geeks’ — for these individuals and organisations process was more important than principles. Most of them were as deeply invested in the multi-stakeholder model as ICANN and the US government and some who have been riding the ICANN gravy train for years.

Even worse, some were suspected of being astroturfers bootstrapped by the private sector and the technical community. None of them were willing to rock the boat. For the ‘process geeks’, seeing politicians and bureaucrats queue up like civil society to speak at the mike was the crowning achievement.

Three, the ‘principles geeks’ perhaps best exemplified by the Just Net Coalition who privileged principles over process. Divisions were also beginning to sharpen within the private sector. For example, Neville Roy Singham, CEO of Thoughtworks, agreed more with civil society than he did with other members of the private sector in his interventions.

In short, the ‘outsiders’ couldn't care less about the outcome and will do everything to discredit it, the ‘process geeks’ stood in ovation when the outcome document was read at the closing plenary and the ‘principles geeks’ returned devastated.

For the multi-stakeholder model to survive it must advance democratic values, not undermine them.

This will only happen if there is greater transparency and accountability. Individuals, organisations and consortia that participate in Internet governance processes need to disclose lists of donors including those that sponsor travel to these meetings.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-business-line-may-10-2014-sunil-abraham-net-freedom-campaign-loses-its-way

Net advocacy body probing linkages between telcos and Facebook’s auto-play video option

praskrishna — 2015-10-29T00:53:55Z

Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India’s leading internet advocacy body, which has often been critical of Facebook’s Internet.org — now called Free Basics — initiative, has said that it is looking into the possibility of Facebook helping telecom companies through its auto-play video option.

The article by Prabhu Mallikarjunan was published in the Financial Express on October 28, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

In an interaction with FE on Tuesday, Sunil Abraham, executive director of The Centre for Internet and Society, said CIS will inititiate research on the notion that the new video option will result in 50% increase in data billing for the telecom companies. It will also look into whether this, in turn, will encourage the telecom companies to be on the Internet.org platform.

This initiative from CIS comes on the eve of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s visit to India on Wednesday, where he will address a gathering at IIT, Delhi. Facebook has been trying to hard sell the Free Basics concept at a time when the Indian government is looking to work closely with the internet major to push the Digital India initiative. “The company (Facebook) has done some good things, and also done some not so good things. The good thing is that, they have changed the name of the application and called it Free Basics. Also, they have re-enabled https and have published “the technical requirements document, through which they have eliminated the exclusivity arm both on the telco end and for OTT (Over the top) players,” Abraham said.

“How does FB gain from making the videos autoplay. It doesn’t gain. Why should the telcos be made happy? We are looking into this theory of whether auto-play video option will result in 50% increase in data billing for the telecom companies,” Abraham said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-prabhu-mallikarjunan-october-28-2015-net-advocacy-body-probing-linkages-between-telcos-and-facebooks-auto-play-video-option

Nel suk dei nativi digitali. Perché gli studenti 2.0 hanno bisogno di una bussola per orientarsi

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T01:31:15Z

Addio al vecchio sapere lineare fondato sulla parola scritta e sulla trasmissione di conoscenza maestro-alunno: imparare oggi ha la forma di un suk arabo nell'ora di punta. Tra social network, video-racconti su YouTube, la musica di MySpace, il linguaggio sincopato delle chat e le bufale online, gli studenti di nuova generazione hanno bisogno di una bussola per orientarsi. Ma la scuola non c'è. O meglio, non ce la fa: a studenti 2.0 corrispondono spesso istituti scolastici da secolo scorso.

Chi sono questi famigerati "nativi digitali" nati e cresciuti a rivoluzione Internet compiuta? Come ha scritto l'ex direttore del programma Comparative media studies dell' Mit di Boston, Henry Jenkins, la loro cultura è "partecipativa" e si fonda su "produzione e condivisione di creazioni digitali" e una "partnership informale" tra insegnanti e alunni che porta il bambino a sentirsi responsabile del progetto educativo. Il maestro non è più un trasmettitore di conoscenza ma un "facilitatore", che fa da filtro tra il caos della rete e il cervello del piccolo studente.

"Frequentano gli schermi interattivi fin dalla nascita", spiega Paolo Ferri docente di tecnologie didattiche e teoria e tecnica dei nuovi media all'Università Bicocca di Milano, "e considerano Internet "il principale strumento di reperimento, condivisione e gestione dell'informazione". È la prima generazione (che oggi ha tra gli o e i 12 anni) veramente hi-tech che pensa, apprende e conosce in maniera differente dai suoi fratelli maggiori. "Se per noi imparare significava leggere-studiare-ripetere, per i bambini cresciuti con i videogames vuol dire innanzitutto risolvere i problemi in maniera attiva", spiega Ferri che studia e promuove da anni il "digital learning".

I bambini cresciuti con consolle e cellulare sono "abituati a vedere la risoluzione di compiti cognitivi come un problema pragmatico", aggiunge. Lynn Clark direttrice dell' Estlow International Center for Journalism and New Media dell'Università di Denver ha condotto un progetto di ricerca su 300 famiglie americane per capire come se la cavano con i media digitali.

"Grazie ai videogiochi, il sapere dei bambini si nutre di simboli, sfide e modelli sempre diversi di narrazione", spiega Clark che aggiunge: "quando le modalità di apprendimento scolastico sono simili a quelle di un gioco ci sono maggiori chances che gli alunni apprendano volentieri e in fretta". "Se qualcosa può essere visto, ascoltato, suonato, perché dovrebbe essere raccontato a parole?", si chiede Paolo Ferri.

Nishant Shah, che a 26 anni dirige il Center for Internet and Society di Bangalore in India, lo spiega così via Skype: "La tecnologia dei nostri padri è quella televisiva: un modello analogico che stabilisce ruoli, responsabilità e struttura della produzione, diffusione e consumo di conoscenza. Con l'esplosione del p2p - l'idea di una rete dove non esiste gerarchia e tutto viene condiviso- i ruoli sono messi in discussione dallo studente, che si considera parte attiva nella produzione di sapere e vede i libri come una fonte tra le tante".

Se è vero che il "l'ha detto Internet" ha assunto tra i bambini l'autorevolezza di una sentenza della Cassazione, è innegabile che la rete sia la patria del vero-simile. "Internet sta ridisegnando i confini della verità - continua Shah - e questo pone grandi sfide per gli educatori del XXI secolo: come si fa a imparare utilizzando fonti che non hanno approvazione istituzionale? Come si può riconoscere un valido provider di conoscenza nel caos online?".

Anche il professore della Bicocca ammette che "la cut-and-paste culture e la presunzione di veridicità della Rete" tendono ad abbassare la percezione critica degli utenti: "Internet diventa per i bambini "la fonte" a prescindere dall'autorevolezza del sito e da chi scrive", dice.

Se passa il modello Wikipedia, crolla l'importanza dell'autore. O, come ha scritto l'antropologa Susan D. Blum sul New York Times, "se per lo studente non è fondamentale essere unico, va bene usare parole di altri. Dice cose a cui non crede? Allora è ok scrivere testi su argomenti sconosciuti con l'unico scopo di prendere un buon voto: conoscere è diventato un mezzo per ottenere consensi e socialità".

Per il momento le iniziative più interessanti di digital learning riguardano i fratelli più grandi. Dal prossimo anno in 2500 campus universitari americani arriverà un software per pc, iPad e telefonini (il costo va dai 30 ai 70 dollari e il maggiore produttore è la Turning Technologies) chiamato "clickers", che permette all'insegnante di verificare il livello di attenzione dello studente - immerso nella navigazione internet - chiedendo feedback sulla tastiera ogni 15 minuti. Il professore di Harvard Charles Nesson ha tenuto un corso virtuale su Second Life, mentre il progetto di educazione civica "YouMedia", sponsorizzato dall'amministrazione di Chicago, promuove l'apprendimento attraverso video-racconti pubblici di libri.

Nella Woodside High School, in California, gli studenti hanno borse di studio per comprare l'iPad, un centro multimediale da tre milioni di dollari e lezioni su come registrare la musica e usare Internet in maniera responsabile. Grazie ai computer economici del guru informatico Nicholas Negroponte, tutti i bambini uruguaiani delle elementari hanno un pc.

In Europa - che ha messo la competenza digitale al quarto posto (dopo prima lingua, lingua straniera e matematica e scienze) tra le competenze chiave per l'educazione degli stati membri dell'Unione - il paese più "nativi digitali oriented" è l'Inghilterra, dove la riforma del sistema scolastico voluta dal governo Blair ha ridotto drasticamente il numero degli studenti per classi, favorendo così la personalizzazione dell'insegnamento, e tagliato il numero delle materie. "Sono passati- sottolinea Paolo Ferri - da un modello disciplinare basato sui contenuti a quello per competenze che si regge su un principio: imparare ad imparare". Ferri ricorda che la lavagna interattiva è presente nel 100% delle classi primarie e secondarie inglesi mentre in Italia si punta ad averne una su dieci entro il 2011. Qui la strada è ancora tutta in salita.

Il ministero dell'Istruzione porta avanti il progetto LIM, che riguarda l'introduzione di lavagne interattive nelle aule, e quello Cl@ssi 2.0 che punta a finanziare con 30mila euro 156 classi (in Italia ci sono circa 25mila scuole) delle scuole medie inferiori per lo sviluppo di progetti innovativi. "C'è una grande carenza di investimenti dall'alto - denuncia Ferri - arginata da qualche dirigente di buona volontà". Per il professore della Bicocca è a livello territoriale, grazie all'autonomia scolastica e alle capacità manageriali e creative di qualche preside, che si vedono i migliori esperimenti.

A Bollate, un comune di 37 mila abitanti alle porte di Milano, per imparare a usare l'iPad basta chiedere aiuto a un bambino. Nelle aule dell'Istituto di via Brianza - due scuole elementari e due medie inferiori - al posto di quadernetti e matite, da settembre gli alunni usano il tablet computer prodotto dalla Apple.

Qualche centinaia di chilometri più a Sud, a Reggio Emilia - la città dove tutti vorrebbero avere 3 anni per quel "Reggio Approach", lodato dal New York Times (parole d'ordine: arte, assemblee di classe e respiro globale), che ha fatto guadagnare al capoluogo emiliano il titolo di capitale mondiale degli asili nido - software, dispositivi elettronici e lavagne interattive hanno ormai sostituito seggioloni e orsacchiotti.

Bollate e Reggio non sono residui di una bizzarra avanguardia pedagogica, il cui simbolo cinematografico è ancora "Bianca" di Nanni Moretti, con le vicende della scuola "Marylin Monroe" dove al posto della foto del presidente della Repubblica c'e' Dino Zoff e i professori giocano alle slot machines e al flipper. Dimostrano piuttosto che ci sono, anche in Italia, presidi e maestri che hanno capito chi sono e come si educano i nativi digitali.

"Ma il risultato è quella di una cartina dell'innovazione a macchia di leopardo", dichiara Ferri, che tuttavia si dice ottimista. Da un lato perché "nel 2013 andrà in pensione la metà degli insegnanti italiani", dall'altro perché crede nel contagio positivo: "In 10 anni le scuole al passo con le trasformazioni sociali e tecnologiche, e per questo premiate con finanziamenti e alto numero di iscrizioni, avranno costretto le altre ad adeguarsi". Una speranza? No, un dovere. Perché "innovare innovare innovare", il famoso mantra di Hal Varian di Google News, è l'unica chance di sopravvivenza anche per la scuola italiana.

Read the original article here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/nel-suk

Need a standard strategy to deal with Web issues: Chandrasekhar

praskrishna — 2012-09-05T08:37:09Z

The government has been facing allegations of Internet censorship for over a year now.

This article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in LiveMint on September 4, 2012. Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted.

The government said it needed to improve the way in which it dealt with issues such as Internet hate messages besides blog posts and SMSes that seek to create panic so that it’s not accused of trying to gag free speech.

"We all have agreed that we need some combination of self-regulation and government interventions. But we need to do it in a proper way,” said department of telecom secretary R. Chandrasekhar, while addressing a Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci) conference on the issue of “legitimate restrictions on freedom of online speech".

	The Union government has been facing allegations of censorship after it sought to contain messages that led to communal violence and a panicexodus by people from the north-eastern states in some cities. Last month, the government ordered the blocking of almost 310 web pages for content deemed to be attacking particular communities. According to a post by Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, 33% of them were on Facebook, 28% on Google Inc.’s YouTube and around 10% on Twitter.

The Union government has been facing allegations of censorship after it sought to contain messages that led to communal violence and a panicexodus by people from the north-eastern states in some cities.

Last month, the government ordered the blocking of almost 310 web pages for content deemed to be attacking particular communities. According to a post by Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, 33% of them were on Facebook, 28% on Google Inc.’s YouTube and around 10% on Twitter.

Defending the government move, Gulshan Rai, chief of the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-in), said it was the first time that the emergency provision of the Information Technology Act 2008 had been exercised. Even though the list was not drawn up by his agency, due scrutiny was carried out before issuing orders to block the sites.

This came after allegations that government may have also blocked bona fide posts as it sought to block content related to the North-East.

Twitter accounts of some journalists and other individuals associated with and sympathetic to right-wing causes were blocked, according to a list published earlier by The Economic Times.

"This is certainly not the last time we are seeing such a situation, so meaningful ways to respond to such complex situations will have to be devised," said Chandrasekhar.

He added that there was also a need to collaborate better with all stakeholders to devise not just defensive strategies during a crisis but also ways to contain its impact using the social media.

Ankhi Das, head of public policy at Facebook India, said that during the London riots of 2011, the UK government enlisted the support of social networking sites to dispel rumours.

"Social media can also be allies of the government at times like this," she said.

Raman Jit Singh Cheema, a senior policy analyst at Google India, cited a similar example of authorities in Japan using such methods to send out correct information following the tsunami that hit the country in 2011.

"We need to collaborate on a continuing basis, so that when you are faced with such a crisis, you are able to deal with it," said Chandrasekhar.

The government has been facing allegations of Internet censorship for over a year after minister for communication and information technology Kapil Sibal raised the issue of regulating social networking sites. They had allegedly not complied with the government’s demand that offensive content be removed.

Chandrasekhar said that processes should be clearer, more transparent and well-defined.

"These need to be brought out in the form of some kind of a standard operating procedure, so that they (stakeholders) are expected to know how to conduct themselves and how they can expect the government to deal if a contingency arises," he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-com-surabhi-agarwal-sep-4-2012-need-a-strategy-to-deal-with-web-issues