We are anonymous, we are legion

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

NE exodus: List containing 309 blocked URLs leaks online

praskrishna — 2012-08-24T13:37:21Z

Latest reports coming in have confirmed that a list containing 309 URLs, whose ban the government had sought in light of the Assam violence and the subsequent NE exodus, has been leaked online.

Published in tech2. Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted.

The aforementioned URLs comprise URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs and a handful of websites, and were blocked between August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012. In an analysis that Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), carried of the leaked items, among other things in his post, he wrote that, "It is clear that the list was not compiled with sufficient care."

In his post, he further noted that the censorship process itself has been riddled with egregious mistakes. Giving instances of the egregious mistakes, he added that even some people and posts debunking the rumours were blocked as part of the censorship. Further, he wrote that some of the items that were blocked were not even web addresses (e.g., a few HTML img tags were included). In his findings, Prakash also found that despite there having been a clear warning issued by the DIT pertaining to the blocking of "above URLs only" and not that of main websites, like www.facebook.com, www.youtube.com, some ISPs (like Airtel) went "overboard in their blocking". This incident, in particular pertains to yesterday's reports, wherein it had been revealed that Airtel had blocked the entire YouTube short URL youtu.be in some cities.

On account of the sensitivity of the issue, he writes that it "would be premature to share the whole list." He, however, writes that CIS plans to make the entire list public soon. The list that CIS has released, however includes -

ABC.net.au
AlJazeera.com
AllVoices.com
WN.com
AtjehCyber.net
BDCBurma.org
Bhaskar.com
Blogspot.com
Blogspot.in
Catholic.org
CentreRight.in
ColumnPK.com
Defence.pk
EthioMuslimsMedia.com
Facebook.com
Farazahmed.com
Firstpost.com
HaindavaKerelam.com
HiddenHarmonies.org
HinduJagruti.org
Hotklix.com
HumanRights-Iran.ir
Intichat.com
Irrawady.org
IslamabadTimesOnline.com
Issuu.com
JafriaNews.com
JihadWatch.org
KavkazCenter
MwmJawan.com
My.Opera.com
Njuice.com
OnIslam.net
PakAlertPress.com
Plus.Google.com
Reddit.com
Rina.in
SandeepWeb.com
SEAYouthSaySo.com
Sheikyermami.com
StormFront.org
Telegraph.co.uk
TheDailyNewsEgypt.com
TheFaultLines.com
ThePetitionSite.com
TheUnity.org
TimesofIndia.Indiatimes.com
TimesOfUmmah.com
Tribune.com.pk
Twitter.com
TwoCircles.net
Typepad.com
Vidiov.info
Wikipedia.org
Wordpress.com
YouTube.com
YouTu.be

Further, in response to the question - as to why some items could still be accessed that were supposed to be blocked, he wrote that there are several errors in the list, making it difficult to apply. And the order has to be put into action by hundreds of ISPs. He adds that some ISPs may not have begun enforcing the blocks yet. "This analysis is based on the orders sent around to ISPs, and not on the basis of actual testing of how many of these have actually been blocked by Airtel, BSNL, Tata, etc. Additionally, if you are using Twitter through a client (on your desktop, mobile, etc.) instead of the web interface, you will not notice any of the Twitter-related blocks," he elaborated further.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/tech-2-in-com-ne-exodus

Navigating the 'Reconsideration' Quagmire (A Personal Journey of Acute Confusion)

Padmini Baruah and Geetha Hariharan — 2016-11-30T13:48:41Z

An earlier analysis of ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy already brought to light our concerns about the lack of transparency in ICANN’s internal mechanisms. Carrying my research forward, I sought to arrive at an understanding of the mechanisms used to appeal a denial of DIDP requests. In this post, I aim to provide a brief account of my experiences with the Reconsideration Request process that ICANN provides for as a tool for appeal.

Backdrop: What is the Reconsideration Request Process?

The Reconsideration Request process has been laid down in Article IV, Section 2 of the

ICANN Bylaws. Some of the key aspects of this provision have been outlined below^{^[1]},

ICANN is obligated to institute a process by which a person materially affected by ICANN action/inaction can request review or reconsideration.

To file this request, one must have been adversely affected by actions of the staff or the board that contradict ICANN’s policies, or actions of the Board taken up without the Board considering material information, or actions of the Board taken up by relying on false information.
A separate Board Governance Committee was created with the specific mandate of reviewing Reconsideration requests, and conducting all the tasks related to the same.
The Reconsideration Request must be made within 15 days of:
- FOR CHALLENGES TO BOARD ACTION: the date on which information about the challenged Board action is first published in a resolution, unless the posting of the resolution is not accompanied by a rationale, in which case the request must be submitted within 15 days from the initial posting of the rationale;
- FOR CHALLENGES TO STAFF ACTION: the date on which the party submitting the request became aware of, or reasonably should have become aware of, the challenged staff action, and
- FOR CHALLENGES TO BOARD OR STAFF INACTION: the date on which the affected person reasonably concluded, or reasonably should have concluded, that action would not be taken in a timely manner

.The Board Governance Committee is given the power to summarily dismiss a reconsideration request if:
- the requestor fails to meet the requirements for bringing a Reconsideration Request;
- it is frivolous, querulous or vexatious; or
- the requestor had notice and opportunity to, but did not, participate in the public comment period relating to the contested action, if applicable

If not summarily dismissed, the Board Governance Committee proceeds to review and reconsider.
A requester may ask for an opportunity to be heard, and the decision of the Board Governance Committee in this regard is final.

The basis of the Board Governance Committee’s action is public written record information submitted by the requester, by third parties, and so on.
The Board Governance Committee is to take a decision on the matter and make a final determination or recommendation to the Board within 30 days of the receipt of the Reconsideration request, unless it is impractical to do so, and it is accountable to the Board to make an explanation of the circumstances that caused the delay.
The determination is to be made public and posted on the ICANN website.

ICANN has provided a neat infographic to explain this process in a simple fashion, and I am reproducing it here:

(Image taken from https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/reconsiderationen)

Our Tryst with the Reconsideration Process

The Grievance
Our engagement with the Reconsideration process began with the rejection of two of our requests (made on September 1, 2015) under ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy. The requests sought information about the registry and registrar compliance audit process that ICANN maintains, and asked for various documents pertaining to the same^{^[2]}:

Copies of the registry/registrar contractual compliance audit reports for all the audits carried out as well as external audit reports from the last year (20142015).
A generic template of the notice served by ICANN before conducting such an audit.
A list of the registrars/registries to whom such notices were served in the last year.
An account of the expenditure incurred by ICANN in carrying out the audit process.
A list of the registrars/registries that did not respond to the notice within a reasonable period of time.
Reports of the site visits conducted by ICANN to ascertain compliance.
Documents which identify the registries/registrars who had committed material discrepancies in the terms of the contract.
Documents pertaining to the actions taken in the event that there was found to be some form of contractual noncompliance.
A copy of the registrar selfassessment form which is to be submitted to ICANN.

ICANN integrated both the requests and addressed them via one response on 1 October, 2015 (which can be found here). In their response, ICANN inundated us with already available links on their website explaining the compliance audit process, and the processes ancillary to it, as well as the broad goals of the programme none of which was sought for by us in our request. ICANN then went on to provide us with information on their ThreeYear Audit programme, and gave us access to some of the documents that we had sought, such as the preaudit notification template, list of registries/registrars that received an audit notification, the expenditure incurred to some extent, and so on .

Individual contracted party reports were denied to us on the basis of their grounds for nondisclosure. Further, and more disturbingly, ICANN refused to provide us with the names of the contracted parties who had been found under the audit process to have committed discrepancies. Therefore, a large part of our understanding of the way in which the compliance audit process works remains unfinished.

What we did

Dissatisfied with this response, I went on to file a Reconsideration request (number 1522) as per their standard format on November 2, 2015. (The request filed can be accessed here).As grounds for reconsideration, I stated that “As a part of my research I was tracking the ICANN compliance audit process, and therefore required access to audit reports in cases where discrepancies where formally found in their actions. This is in the public interest and therefore requires to be disclosed...While providing us with an array of detailed links explaining the compliance audit process, the ICANN staff has not been able to satisfy our actual requests with respect to gaining an understanding of how the compliance audits help in regulating actions of the registrars, and how they are effective in preventing breaches and discrepancies.” Therefore, I requested them to make the records in question publicly available “We request ICANN to make the records in question, namely the audit reports for individual contracted parties that reflect discrepancies in contractual compliance, which have been formally recognised as a part of your enforcement process. We further request access to all documents that relate to the expenditure incurred by ICANN in the process, as we believe financial transparency is absolutely integral to the values that ICANN stands by.”

The Board Governance Committee’s response³

The determination of the Board Governance Committee was that our claims did not merit reconsideration, as I was unable to identify any “misapplication of policy or procedure by the ICANN Staff”, and my only issue was with the substance of the DIDP Response itself, and substantial disagreements with a DIDP response are not proper bases for reconsideration

(emphasis supplied).

The response of the Board Governance Committee was educative of the ways in which they determine Reconsideration Requests. Analysing the DIDP process, it held that ICANN was well within its powers to deny information under its defined Conditions for NonDisclosure, and denial of substantive information did not amount to a procedural violation. Therefore, since the staff adhered to established procedure under the DIDP, there was no basis for our grievance, and our request was dismissed..

Furthermore, as a postscript, it is interesting to note that the Board Governance Committee delayed its response time by over a month, by its own admission “In terms of the timing of the BGC’s recommendation, it notes that Section 2.16 of Article IV of the Bylaws provides that the BGC shall make a final determination or recommendation with respect to a reconsideration request within thirty days, unless impractical. To satisfy the thirtyday deadline, the BGC would have to have acted by 2 December 2015. However, due to the timing of the BGC’s meetings in November and December, the first practical opportunity for the BGC to consider Request 1522 was 13 January 2016.”⁴

Whither do I wander now?

To me, this entire process reflected the absurdity of the Reconsideration request structure as an appeal mechanism under the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy. As our experience indicated, there does not seem to be any way out if there is an issue with the substance of ICANN’s response. ICANN, commendably, is particular about following procedure with respect to the DIDP. However, what is the way forward for a party aggrieved by the flaws in the existing policy? As I had analysed earlier, the grounds for ICANN to not disclose information are vast, and used to deny a large chunk of the information requests that they receive. How is the hapless requester to file a meaningful appeal against the outcome of a bad policy, if the only ground for appeal is noncompliance with the procedure of said bad policy? This is a serious challenge to transparency as there is no other way for a requester to acquire information that ICANN may choose to withold under one of its myriad clauses. It cannot be denied that a good information disclosure law ought to balance the free disclosure of information with the holding back of information that truly needs to be kept private.^{^[3]}^{^[4]} However, it is this writer’s firm opinion that even instances where information is witheld, there has to be a stronger explanation for the same, and moreover, an appeals process that does not take into account substantive issues which might adversely affect the appellant falls short of the desirable levels of transparency. Global standards dictate that grounds for appeal need to be broad, so that all failures to apply the information disclosure law/policy may be remedied.⁶ Various laws across the world relating to information disclosure often have the following as grounds for appeal: an inability to lodge a request, failure to respond to a request within the set time frame, a refusal to disclose information, in whole or in part, excessive fees and not providing information in the form sought, as well as a catchall clause for other failures.⁷

Furthermore, independent oversight is the heart of a proper appeal mechanism in such situations^{^[5]}; the power to decide the appeal must not rest with those who also have the discretion to disclose the information, as is clearly the case with ICANN, where the Board Governance Committee is constituted and appointed by the ICANN Board itself [one of the bodies against whom a grievance may be raised].

Suggestions

We believe ICANN, in keeping with its global, multistakeholder, accountable spirit, should adopt these standards as well, especially now that the transition looms around the corner. Only then will the standards of open, transparent and accountable governance of the Internet upheld by ICANN itself as the ideal be truly, meaningfully realised. Accordingly, the following standards ought to be met with:

Establishment of an independent appeals authority for information disclosure cases
Broader grounds for appeal of DIDP requests
Inclusion of disagreement with the substantive content of a DIDP response as a ground for appeal.
Provision of proper reasoning for any justification of the witholding of information that is necessary in the public interest.

[1] Article IV, Section 2, ICANN Bylaws, 2014 available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylawsen/#IV

[2] Copies of the request can be found here and here.

[3] Katherine Chekouras, Balancing National Security with a Community's RighttoKnow: Maintaining

Public Access to Environmental Information Through EPCRA 's NonPreemption Clause, 34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev 107, (2007).

[4] Toby Mendel, Freedom of Information: A Comparative Legal Study 151 (2nd edn, 2008).

Id, at 152

³4 Available here. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration1522cisfinaldetermination13jan16en.pdf

[5] Mendel, supra note 6.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/navigating-reconsideration-quagmire-a-personal-journey-of-acute-confusion

National Stakeholders Consultation on the National Digital Health Blueprint

Admin — 2019-08-07T14:21:29Z

Ambika Tandon and Aayush Rathi attended the National Stakeholders Consultation on the National Digital Health Blueprint organised by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 6 August 2019 at Constitution Club of India in New Delhi.

It was also attended by representatives from MeitY apart from industry and civil society. We raised questions about the provisions for privacy andinteroperability in the NDHB, in relation to provisions in the DISHA Act and the Srikrishna report. The public call for the event can be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-stakeholders-consultation-on-the-national-digital-health-blueprint

National Seminar on Cyber Security & Cyber Laws - Issues and Concerns

praskrishna — 2014-12-31T02:04:37Z

Sharath Chandra Ram was a panelist at this seminar organized by the Advanced Centre for Research, Development & Training in Cyber Laws & Forensics on December 27 and 28, 2014 at the National Law School of India University in Bangalore.

Sharath was part of a plenary session on "Multi-Disciplinary Challenges in Ensuring Cyber Security". He spoke about 'multi-stakeholderim in cyber security and CERT programs of nations'.

PROGRAMME SCHEDULE

Day 1 - 27^th December 2014
09:00- 10:00	REGISTRATION
10:00- 11:00 INAUGURAL SESSION AT SHRI. KRISHNAPPA MEMORIAL HALL [ACADEMIC BLOCK]	Welcome & Introduction: Dr. Nagarathna. A., Seminar Director Inaugural Address: Shri. Pratap Reddy, IPS, IGP, Internal Security Division, Karnataka Police, Bangalore Key Note Address: Dr. R. Venkata Rao, Vice Chancellor, NLSIU Vote of Thanks: Dr. T. V. Subba Rao, Senior Professor, NLSIU
11:00-11:45	GROUP PHOTO & TEA BREAK
11:45-01:00 PLENARY SESSION AT SHRI. KRISHNAPPA MEMORIAL HALL [ACADEMIC BLOCK]	THEME: "MULTI-DISCIPLINARY CHALLENGES IN ENSURING CYBER SECURITY" Members of the Panel: 1. Mr. Subrahmanya Boda, CISO, GMR 2. Mr. Sunil Varkey, CISO, WIPRO 3. Mr. Ramesh Kauta , CISO, GE [India] 4. Mr. T T Thomas, CTO Synergia Technologies, 5. Mr. Rahul Matthan, Partner, Trilegal. 6. Sharath Chandra Ram (Sharathchandra Ramakrishnan), Researcher at Centre for Internet & Society 7. Mr. Srinivas P, CISO, Infosys & Anchor, DSCI Bangalore Chapter [Moderator of the session]
01:00-02:00	LUNCH BREAK
venue	Shri Krishnappa Memorial Hall (Academic Block)		International Training Centre
02:00-03:30	Technical Session 1		Technical Session 2
03:30-04:00	TEA BREAK
04:00-05:30	Technical Session 3		Technical Session 4
6:00 to 7. 00	CULTURAL EVENING Venue: Quad, Academic Block
Day 2 - 28^th December 2014
08:00-09:00	BREAK FAST
venue	Shri Krishnappa Memorial Hall (Academic Block)	International Training Centre		MPP Class Room (Academic Block)
09:30- 11:00	Technical Session 5	Technical Session 6		Technical Session 7
11:00- 11:30	TEA BREAK
	Shri Krishnappa Memorial Hall (Academic Block)	International Training Centre		MPP Class Room (Academic Block)
11:30-1:30	Technical Session 8	Technical Session 9		Technical Session 10
01:30-02:30	LUNCH BREAK
02:30-03. 45 PLENARY SESSION AT SHRI. KRISHNAPPA MEMORIAL HALL [ACADEMIC BLOCK]	THEME: "SECURING CYBER SPACE THROUGH INSTITUTIONAL INVOLVEMENT" Members of the Panel: 1. Dr. Kamble, Director, Computer Emergency Response Team [CERT] India, Dept of Electronics & IT, Ministry of IT, Government of India 2. Dr. S.B.N. Prakash, Senior Professor of Law, NLSIU 3. Mr. Naa Vijay Shankar, Cyber Law Consultant, Bangalore 4. Mr. Balasubramanya, Vice President, Tata Consultancy Services, Bangalore 5. Mr. Ranganath, Delivery Project Executive, IBM, Bangalore 6. Mr. Venkatesh Murthy, Senior Manager, Cyber Forensics, Data Security Council of India [DSCI], Bangalore. 7. Mr. M. D. Sharath, Dy. S. P., Cyber Police, Bangalore 8. Dr. Nagarathna. A., Senior Assistant Prof of Law, NLSIU [Moderator]
3. 45 to 4. 00	TEA BREAK
04:00-05:00 AT SHRI. KRISHNAPPA MEMORIAL HALL [ACADEMIC BLOCK]	VALEDICTORY SESSION Seminar Resolutions: Dr. T. V. Subba Rao, Senior Professor, NLSIU Valedictory Address & Distribution of Certificates: : Dr. R. Venkata Rao, Vice Chancellor, NLSIU Vote of thanks: Dr. Nagarathna. A., Seminar Director

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-seminar-cyber-security-and-cyber-laws

National Privacy Workshop

Admin — 2017-12-05T14:24:16Z

Centre for Internet & Society is organizing a round-table to discuss the potential impact of numerous policy developments with wide ranging implications for recognition and governance of privacy in India. The round-table will be held on December 9, 2017 at India International Centre in New Delhi, 10.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

Background

The recent past in India has seen numerous policy developments with wide ranging implications for recognition and governance of privacy in India. The emphatic and unanimous avowal of the right to privacy by the Supreme Court, the government’s stated commitment to a data protection law and the formation of the Sri Krishna Committee are developments which will continue to inform policymaking around privacy in India for a long time to come. The Supreme Court’s conception of a robust right to privacy encompassing different element - spatial, decisional and informational, and its guidance on strict limiting tests may have a wide impact on a range of issues. The impact of this judgment and a data protection law on informational privacy in India will be immense and it is important to delve in challenges and issues that it may throw up. In last year, we have also seen instances of purported conflict between the transparency instruments such as the right to information and the right to informational privacy. How these conflicts are resolved in law and practice will be key to these two essential human rights in the modern information society. Further, while these general consensus on privacy principles, the appropriate ways to govern and enforce privacy remains an open issue, and the success of any data protection framework will depend as much on what kind of privacy governance models are adopted.This roundtable will look to discuss the potential impact of these policy decisions, what theories should guide the data protection law in India, what models of privacy governance are workable and how privacy can co-exist with transparency principle and robust RTI regime.

Agenda

10.30 - 11.00	Tea
11.00 - 11.30	Welcome and setting the scene
11.30 - 12.30	Session 1: Policy Developments around Informational Privacy in India What do different policy developments indicate about privacy in India? What are the (potential) impacts of these developments? What questions are being asked and are these the right questions to ask? How do we expect the ‘state of privacy’ to change in India in response to these policy developments?
12.30 - 13.30	Session 2: Approaches to Privacy and Data Protection for India What are different approaches to privacy and government the Indian government can take? What cultural/political etc. aspects should be taken into consideration when thinking through this question? What are the pros and cons to different approaches? What are the pros and cons to the below approaches: - Privacy as control - Data as property - Utilitarian approaches - Technological Solutions
13.30 - 14.30	Lunch
14.30 - 15.30	Session 3: Transparency and Privacy How can transparency from the private sector enable the right to privacy? What are key principles that can guide this relationship? Where is transparency from the private sector most needed with respect to privacy? What are incentives that governments can adopt to encourage privacy?
15.30 - 16.30	Governance Models for Data Protection What kind of institutional framework is required for governance of privacy in India? How do we address questions of liability, penalties and enforcement? What role do sectoral players have in a data governance framework? What is best way for other stakeholders like industry, civil society and academia in collaborative governance of privacy?
16.30 - 17.00	Tea and snacks

Speakers

Usha Ramanathan
Rahul Sharma
Apar Gupta
Malavika Raghavan
Shankar Narayanan
Ujwala Uppaluri
Rebecca MacKinnon
Nikhil Pahwa
Kamlesh Bajaj
Manasa Venkatraman
Smitha K Prasad

Download the Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/national-privacy-workshop-at-india-international-centre