We are anonymous, we are legion

Mapping Digital Media: Broadcasting, Journalism and Activism in India: A Public Consultation

samantha — 2013-11-07T03:38:45Z

Lawyers, researchers, journalists and activists gathered on Sunday, October 27, 2013 at the Bangalore International Centre in response to India’s country report on Mapping Digital Media, which examines citizen’s access to quality news and information across different industries, and impacts on media freedoms as a result of digitisation. Respondents examined themes related to regulation, journalism and activism, and engaging discussions took place among attendees.

On behalf of event organizers, we invite you to view the report, available online for free access here: "Mapping Digital Media: India.

Event organizers, Alternative Law Forum, The Centre for Internet & Society, and Maraa, held a public consultation at the Bangalore International Centre with the ultimate goals to inform and engage the public within key themes of the Mapping Digital Media: India report, as a new knowledge basis for better understanding India’s transitioning digital landscape. Many resulting ideas about moving forward with the report’s findings also came about, as prospective proceeding steps within the life cycle following the report’s release.

Respondents consisted of reputed media lawyers, researchers, journalists, activist and other media professionals. Each spoke before the meeting room within three panel discussions pertaining to different sections of the report: Policies, Laws and Regulators; Digital Activism; and Digital Journalism. Each speaker shed a new light on key challenges confronting our emergent digital media landscape with special focus given to broadcasting (radio and television), cable operations and newspapers (print & online) as each of these sectors undergo digitisation.

Opening

Vibodh Parthasarathi, who had anchored the country report, started off the consultation by underscoring the report's objective of mapping the different sectors and seemingly disparate aspects of India's complex media landscape. Following a brief introduction to the report was the setting of the stage by Alternative Law Forum Co-founder and Partner, Lawrence Liang, as he shared the ultimate aims of the event in speaking collectively to the report so that we may gain a better understanding of an area that is otherwise opaque by most. Lawrence also brings to the forefront the report’s debunking of the idea of the digital divide for India, and its account of a rich media landscape.

Policies, Laws and Regulators

The consultation’s first panel discussion was started by Lawrence, as he responded to the report from a perspective of legality. Lawrence examines the role of the state in India’s rich media landscape, specifically in terms of the four values at the centre of such: freedom of speech and expression, access to infrastructure, the question of development, and the question of market regulations—all of which are tied together within the country report. Lawrence argues that we must arrive at quantitative measures of accessing diversity and quantity of freedom of speech, but only after understanding the ecology in which freedom of speech operates, and attempts to do so in examining drafted policies, policing measures, and market regulatory measures taken within the context of India.

Thirty attendees including journalists, activists, academics, and lawyers, all brought forth different perspectives on digital media in India.

Following was Matthew John, Associate Professor and Executive Director of the Centre on Public law and Jurisprudence. Matthew shared his impressions on the report, while making reference to three issues the report asks us to rethink; these being: public reason, the regulatory state, and the question of distribution. Matthew gives rise to a democratic problem in the public sphere of communication and claims that how it is addressed and resolved must be paid attention to. He makes reference to the history of telecom cases in responding to the question of how we are going to think about freed up telecom, and contrasts different types of regulatory agencies in asking the question of whether or not we should separate regulation from politics.

An engaging discussion following this panel’s speakers took place. Amongst points made by event attendees includes questions of how to scale up the citizen’s stake in media within a legal paradigm, as well as points made with reference to challenges to equity in media in terms of content and challenges to such.

Digital Media and Society (Digital Activism)

The discussion had begun with panelist, Arjun Venkatraman, Co-founder of the Mojolab Foundation as well as the digital activism platform, Swara. Arjun engages within the digital media debate in speaking on behalf of members of civil society that act from within the digital divide and exposes the gaps within new modes of activism that arise out of a lack of understanding on how to engage with these new medias. He also informed attendees of how to make cheap IVR based voice portals, linking voice users to the web for under USD200 as means of leveraging users’ voices via unlicensed spectrum.

Also contributing to the discussion on digital activism was Meera K, Cofounder of Bangalore News publication, Citizen Matters. In examining examples of new spaces that digital media has provided for the exchange of pluralistic views and alternative voices, Meera critiques different types of activism that have emerged, including social activism, political activism, and middle class activism. She questions whether new media can be seen as sufficient space for free speech with reference to various challenges, such as the polarization of debates, and also compares and contrasts the positive outcomes of new media campaigns—such as tangible capitalized solutions—with corresponding pitfalls.

A debate amongst attendees followed in response to the question of assessing the value of media in terms of impact or size of public outreach, along with how content is generated and controlled.

Digital Media and Journalism

Independent journalist and media analyst, Geeta Seshu, got the conversation started regarding digital media and journalism by comparing the pitfalls of journalism in traditional media with the possibilities offered by digital journalism. Geeta argues that journalists have become devalued and are losing their footing within traditional media. She discussed the new forms of journalism and how news can be generated in an interactive and non-hierarchical manner and examined the intersections of mainstream media and journalism. She questions the possibility of digital journalism existing on its own, without the influence of or incorporation of principles of traditional media, and grapples with possibilities for providing a new model for doing so.

The day’s last speaker was Subhash Rai, Associate Editor of New Indian Express. Subhash offers a mainstream perspective and argues that we must look at traditional and mainstream forms of media as a starting point for emerging forms of journalism before we can begin to understand these journalism models better. Just as well, traditional and mainstreams means of news dissemination can learn from digital media, however we should not be quick to look away from the core of the entire picture, as traditional forms of media are still very strong in comparison.

A discussion followed surrounded questions posed by speakers and attendees, such as what digital journalism should look like, and how such a transition to new forms of media should be imagined. How information has changed with respect to its creation and consumption was debated as well.

Moving Forward

Before the conclusion of the public consultation, attendees and speakers discussed future advancements for the country report. Many recommendations and ideas were generated, including suggestions for future public consultations, advocacy windows offered by the report, and ways to produce another iteration of the report. Prospective initiatives included online working groups to dive deeper into specific themes of the report, a Hackathon where attendees will pool ideas together, and follow-up public consultations.


Participants brainstormed together on how to move forward the report’s findings. Many ideas were drafted, including a Hack-a-thon and online focus groups.

The event's agenda went as follows:

Time	Detail
10.00 a.m.	Introductory Remarks by Vibodh Parthasarathi, CCMG, Jamia
10.15 a.m. - 11.30 a.m.	Policies, Laws and Regulators Session Moderator – Ram Bhat Speakers – Lawrence Liang (ALF) and Mathew John (JGLS)
11.30 a.m. - 11.45 a.m.	Tea Break
11.45 a.m. - 1.15 p.m.	Digital Media and Society (Digital Activism) Session Moderator – Lawrence Liang Speakers – Arjun Venkatraman (Mojolab) and Meera K (Citizen Matters)
1.15 p.m. - 2.00 p.m.	Lunch Break
2.00 p.m. - 3.15 p.m.	Digital Media and Journalism Session Moderator – Vibodh Parthasarathi Speakers – Geeta Seshu (Free Speech Hub) and Subhash Rai (newindianexpress.com)
3.15 p.m. - 4.00 p.m.	The Way Ahead (Moving Forward) Moderated by Lawrence Liang

Event Participants

Rashmi Vallabhrajasyuva
Meera K, Oorvani Foundation
Samantha Cassar, CIS
Sharath Chandra Ram, CIS
Suresh Kumar, Artist
Aruna Sekhar, Amnesty India
Sriram Sharma, Part time Blogger
Ammu Joseph, Independent Researcher
Mathew John, Jindal Global Law School
Swati Mehta, The Rules
James North, The Rules
Bhairav Acharya, Lawyer
Deepa Kurup, The Hindu
Abhilash N, Independent
Deepu, Pedestrian Pictures
Rashmi M, PhD Student at NIAS
Jayanth S, LOCON Solutions Pvt Ltd.
Nehaa Chaudhari, CIS
Dinesh TB, Servelots
Snehashish Ghosh, CIS
Lawrence Liang, ALF
Vibodh Parthasarathi, CCMG, Jamia
Ram Bhat, Maraa
Ashish Sen, AMARC
Subhash Rai, New Indian Express
Geeta Seshu, Free Speech Hub, The Hoot
Arjun Venkatraman, Mojo Lab Foundation
Raajen, Centre for Education and Documentation
Ekta, Maraa
Smarika Kumar, ALF

Press Coverage

Need to increase diversity in online journalism (The New Indian Express, October 28, 2013).
Experts moot holistic approach to media laws (The Hindu, October 28, 2013).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-digital-media-broadcasting-journalism-activism-india

Mapping Digital Media: Broadcasting, Journalism and Activism in India — A Public Consultation

praskrishna — 2013-10-25T10:46:24Z

Alternative Law Forum, Maraa and the Centre for Internet and Society invite you to a public consultation on Mapping Digital Media in India, on October 27, 2013 at the Bangalore International Centre from 10 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.

Click to download the background note, press invite and press release and the poster of the event.

Here, reputed media lawyers, researchers, journalists, activists and other media professionals will be responding to a recent report that examines the progress of digitisation in India and its impact on media freedom and citizen’s access to quality news and information—the fundamental principles underpinning the Open Society Foundations’ work on media and communications.

Recently, India decided to make digitalise distribution of television signals across India in a phased manner, further contributing to the phenomenon of global digitisation, as citizens enter the fully digital broadcast world. While there may be perceived benefits of the ‘digital switchover’ in terms of freeing up spectrum, increase in quality of signals and so on, the full impact of digitalisation on plurality, diversity, ownership of media and content is yet to be comprehended fully.

Through this public consultation, hosts, Maraa, the Alternative Law Forum (ALF) and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), hope to shed light on key challenges confronting our emergent digital landscape while incorporating the input of those directly affected by this digitisation, India’s digital consumers, in a widened discussion on the matter. Speakers will directly respond to three sections of the country report – Regulation, Digital Activism and Journalism, and discussions to focus on trends in broadcasting (radio and television), cable operations and newspapers (print & online) as each of these sectors undergo digitalisation.

We would appreciate your participation at this public consultation so that we each may become better informed with regards to India’s digital media landscape and contribute to discussion as we strive to better comprehend the multifaceted picture that is emerging as this media digitisation takes place and look forward to hearing your input.

The India report is available for free download at http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/mapping-digital-media-india

Agenda

Policies, Laws and Regulators
10.00 a.m. - 10.30 a.m.	Lawrence Liang
10.30 a.m. - 11.00 a.m.	Mathew John
11.00 a.m. - 11.30 a.m.	Q & A
11.30 a.m. - 11.45 a.m.	Tea Break

Impact of Digital Media on Activism
11.45 a.m. - 12.15 p.m.	Arjun Venkatraman
12.15 p.m. - 12.45 p.m.	Meera K
12.45 p.m. - 1.15 p.m.	Q & A
1.15 p.m. - 2.00 p.m.	Lunch Break

Impact of Digital Media on Journalism
2.00 p.m. - 2.30 p.m.	Geeta Seshu
2.30 p.m. - 3.00 p.m.	Subhash Rai
3.00 p.m. - 3.30 p.m.	Q & A
Closing Remarks

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/mapping-digital-media-public-consultation-october-27-bangalore

Mapping cybersecurity in India: An infographic

Arindrajit Basu, Karan Saini, Aayush Rathi and Swaraj Barooah — 2018-12-23T16:57:24Z

This infographic maps the key stakeholder, areas of focus and threat vectors that impact cybersecurity policy in India. Broadly, policy-makers should concentrate on establishing a framework where individuals feel secure and trust the growing digital ecosystem. The infographic therefore serves as a ready reference point for the research that we have done and hope to continue through our cybersecurity work at CIS.

Infographic designed by Saumyaa Naidu

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/arindrajit-basu-karan-saini-aayush-rathi-and-swaraj-paul-barooah-december-23-mapping-cyber-security-in-india-infographic

Many sites bypass porn ban

Admin — 2018-12-24T15:45:25Z

They use proxy and mirror sites to cater to India, now on a list of countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that block intimate content online.

The article by Rajitha Menon was published in Deccan Herald on December 6, 2018. Akriti Bopanna was quoted.

The government has got Internet service providers (ISPs) to block 827 websites with pornographic content.

The instruction was based on an order of the Uttarakhand High Court, which reinstated a government order in 2015, on the grounds that watching porn promotes sexual assault.

After a failed ban, the government had got its way, armed with a court order. A horrifying gang rape at a Dehradun school prompted the Uttarakhand court order. According to reports, four students assaulted a girl after watching porn clips.

The order cites no scientific evidence to link pornography with sexual assault. Many in Bengaluru are sceptical not just about the order but also by the assumption that porn can be effectively blocked.

The Internet has plenty of options and the number of porn websites out there is certainly more than 827, they say. It is not rocket science to figure out how to bypass the filters by using virtual private networks (VPN); the Opera browser uses this. Several porn sites have launched altered URLs so that Indian users can still access their content.

Proxy websites, such as Hidester, Hide.me, Whoer.net, and Anonymouse, easily bypass the block. Other sites like Behance.net advise their clients to download their mobile app and browse anonymously.

Even for those who are not that tech savvy, there is a massive market of offline pornography. Porn DVDs or porn on a flash drive can be found on sale everywhere.

Then, Indian law does not ban porn. Watching porn in private is not a criminal offence, say lawyers. Storing and publishing images of child sexual abuse are, however, punishable.

Mobile users are already complaining that ISPs are blocking porn sites.

Finally, what are the sociological and psychological consequences of the ban? Metrolife spoke to some experts to find out.

Deepika Nambiar,Â Clinical psychologist ,Â Abhayahasta Multispeciality Hospital

Banning porn is not the answer. Watching porn is a personal choice. Porn can affect people but it does not override their values. People with aggressive tendencies or with personality issues might get affected though. When it comes to adverse consequences on children, parents should have control. When we ban something, the curiosity increases. And there are many sources for this kind of thing on the Internet. Children are curious or under peer pressure to watch such videos. This can result in addiction later on, if there is no one to tell them where to draw the line. Parents should keep a watch on kids isolating themselves and spending too much time alone.

Amba Salelkar,Â Lawyer, Equals Centre for Promotion of Social Justice

There is ample evidence to show there is no correlation between access to pornographic material and incidents of sexual assault. Also, it is not that all pornographic material is shot non-consensually or is exploitative in nature. In fact, there is an emerging area of feminist pornography. If the question is of prevention, you might as well strengthen sex education in the country. People have to resort to videos on the Internet to clarify their doubts and that is not a good thing. Sex-positive education should be included in school curriculums. We need to strengthen mechanisms to tackle cases of revenge porn and videos that promote violence against women. We also need to engage with website providers instead of banning them.

Raj Armani, CEO, Imbesharam.com, Adult store

I think it is illogical to connect the rising cases of rape with porn consumption. India cannot be truly democratic if the government decides to moral police people. It has to eventually accept that the new generation is ready and able to balance their traditions as well as their freedom of choice and expression. In one way, we are opening the doors by decriminalising gay sex and on the other side, we are closing windows. Associating rape to watching porn is as illogical as associating a murder with a Bollywood or Hollywood crime thriller. The boundaries of law, humanity and decency always override any content consumption. On the contrary, the lack of porn may lead to a build-up of unhealthy energy and cause it to go haywire.

Akriti Bopanna, Programme Office, Centre for Internet and Society

Viewing porn is not illegal but publishing obscene content, which pornography can be construed as, is illegal under sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act. Section 69 (A) of the Act allows the government to order blocking of public access to websites. Moreover, under Section 79 (3) (b) of the Act, governments can get away with making ISPs ban porn since it mandates intermediaries to comply with government orders in the case of unlawful acts. Otherwise they lose their safe harbour provisions.

The Supreme Court in 2015 stated you canâ??t stop citizens from watching porn within their own homes. This was prior to the Puttaswamy judgment, and now that the right to privacy has been declared a right, banning porn websites can be argued as a violation of it.

There is a high risk of a ban being counterproductive in that it will compel individuals to access websites with lax security or shoddy VPNs. These then put people in danger because their information can be logged by such entities, giving access to tracking for advertising and creating malware problems. Not all VPNs are sound, so the individual will still be legally unsafe since information could be potentially traceable.

Dr Rizwana Begum, Psychotherapist, Aviva Psychological Clinic

Porn does encourage abusive sex. The acts shown in pornographic videos are more like fantasy, not really achievable in reality. When one wants to fulfil the fantasy, the other partner might not be okay with it. This affects a lot of relationships as shame and guilt are induced. It leads to aggression, disgust and rejection. There is a rise in the number of cases of pornography addiction, especially among single men. Also, the concept of multiple partners in a sexual act was introduced through pornographic videos and is leading to disorder and violence in real life.

How it started

In 2013, Indore-based advocate Kamlesh Vaswani filed a public interest case in the Supreme Court seeking a ban on porn. He came up with a list of 857 websites which he wanted the court to ban. He argued that most of the porn online is exploitative and increases violent sexual behaviour in the real world.

The court asked the government to find ways to block porn. The government formed the Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee, chaired by then telecom and IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/deccan-herald-rajitha-menon-december-6-2018-many-sites-bypass-porn-ban

Mandatory Aadhaar card for govt scholarships violates SC order

praskrishna — 2016-07-30T15:55:38Z

There seems to be no end to the government’s legal troubles.

The article by Neelam Pandey and Aloke Tikku was published in the Hindustan Times on July 15, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

The human resource development (HRD) ministry has made Aadhaar mandatory for government scholarship and fellowship from this academic year, a move that violates the Supreme Court’s order.

Under this decision, the government will transfer the funds to the students’ bank accounts only after they submit their Aadhaar number.

The court had last August barred the government from using Aadhaar for any purpose other than distributing food grain and cooking fuel such as kerosene and LPG. The SC had gone further to rule that production of Aadhaar would not be condition for obtaining any benefits due to a citizen.

It was this SC order that prompted the government to push the Aadhaar law through Parliament to ensure that the court’s restriction did not come in the way of expanding the direct benefit transfer project.

The law – that was passed by Parliament – gave the government powers to make Aadhaar mandatory for receiving any benefit, facility or service that involved any expenditure from the public exchequer.

But most provisions of the Aadhaar law have not come into force yet.

This week, it notified provisions that enabled it to appoint the chairperson of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that issues the 12-digit unique number and set up offices in cities outside Delhi.

“This appears to be contempt of court,” said Sunil Abraham, head of the Bengaluru-headquartered advocacy group, Centre for Internet and Society.

Thomas Mathew, one of the petitioners in the case pending before the Supreme Court, agreed. “I am going to move a contempt petition against the HRD ministry and UGC,” Mathew said, pointing that oil companies were also forcing people to get Aadhaar.

The UGC directive to central universities sets July-end as the deadline for scholars at central universities to get their Aadhaar number. Many scholars who did not have an Aadhaar number said the fellowship were an important source of income for them to get by.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-neelam-pandey-aloke-tikku-july-15-2016-mandatory-aadhaar-card-for-govt-scholarships-violates-sc-order

Managing Spectrum

radha — 2011-08-18T04:54:56Z

The Empowered Group of Ministers' goal should be nothing short of a broadband revolution - Shyam Ponappa / New Delhi, November 5, 2009 (Business Standard)

In communications services, the high demand for spectrum compared with limited supply is well established. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) estimates demand in five years at 580 MHz, with current assignment to commercial operators at about 160 MHz. In this limited amount, fragmented spectrum holdings reduce efficiency, and broadband
growth and availability have been abysmal. Therefore, the policy alternatives evaluated should include ways to maximise utility through conserving resources and facilitating broadband Internet. The Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) needs this analysis to make informed decisions. The related issue of maximising utility from facilities, i.e., sharing networks for maximum benefit while conserving capital, thereby resulting in lower prices, likewise deserves serious consideration. For this, they need inputs on the benefits and costs of coordinated policy reform to promote broadband through incentives and penalties.

Having said that, it is for the officials providing support to the EGoM to structure, analyse and prioritise issues and provide the requisite information to facilitate informed decisions on complex choices. This requires appropriate inputs on technology as well. Efforts on all these aspects seem inadequate, with the EGoM being simply not adequately informed.

Trai recently began a consultation process, addressing a host of issues relating to 3G, Broadband Wireless Access (BWA) and licensing. A major deficiency is that no purposive goals and objectives are indicated, nor is there a facilitating logic to the structuring of issues (57 wide-ranging questions, with roughly three weeks for comments).

This is because Trai has posed issues built up over the years in one burst, resulting in the equivalent of a “flash flood”. Instead, structured consultations on discrete sets of questions, as in the indicative example below, are likely to yield better results. However, given where we are — the usual how-far-to-go-in-how-little-time — an organised, logical presentation with relevant inputs would improve the chances of good decisions and outcomes. Here is a suggested road map.

GOALS & OBJECTIVES
The first requirement for the consultation process is clear objectives based on needs. As Trai has not provided this, here are indicative constructs:

Our policies for infrastructure should be in public interest. In communications, these are:

Ready access anywhere in the country to: (a) good services and (b) at reasonable prices.
The services can be thought of as “Broadband Internet” and “Voice and SMS”.

(Note: There are very different objectives for broadcasting, which is outside the scope of these comments.)

DECISION TREES & ISSUE MAPS

A decision tree is an alternative to wading through a welter of unstructured questions, starting with fundamental objectives, using a logical decision map/issue map as a framework (see graphic). This requires judgment in selecting, organising and prioritising issues. The example assumes that the least capital and operating costs (while maintaining high quality) are appropriate criteria for services in public interest.

These decisions will determine how issues of licensing and consolidation/acquisitions pan out. Questions on pricing remain, e.g., per cent of revenues for licences and spectrum charges, and the timing of fees (i.e., cash flow from a fiscal perspective). If the decision is to pool spectrum, there are critical questions on Administered Incentive Pricing. The same principles of concessions and incentives (i.e., subsidies) as for sectors like power and highways need to be applied. Finally, there needs to be rationalisation in non-commercial uses, e.g., governance and defence.

SPECTRUM & NETWORK EFFICIENCY=LOWER COSTS

Given our fragmented spectrum holdings, perceived scarcity and economic efficiencies of limited competition in networks, there is reason to explore an approach to conserving spectrum and consolidating facilities. Spectrum can either be given or licensed for exclusive use in bands to separate operators as is done now, or be made available in large (at least 20 MHz) blocks to all operators for common use. Alternatively, operators can be given incentives to pool licensed spectrum to create a common capacity. The same approach can be explored for networks (facilities that use spectrum); these too can be pooled and shared if individually owned. Operators do this in a limited way, e.g., sharing towers, but pooling can be organised and extended much further.

Ill-considered policies that increase competition for its own sake because of the predominance of doctrinaire “free-market” notions have displaced more appropriate market structures. In India, this has resulted in 12-14 operators per service area, compared with the global average of three-five. The economics of networks favour limits to competition, because networks lend themselves to a limited-player (monopolistic or oligopolistic) market.*

Interestingly, an economist at the US Federal Communications Commission has this to say: “…For what should competition be promoted? Promoting competition for particular services can have major implications for the evolution of regulation and the long-term competitive structure of the industry. Unfortunately, the ‘competition for what?’ question has not received adequate consideration.”**

The benefit of using contiguous bands of spectrum is that costs could be significantly lower for equivalent voice and data capacity because of less advanced technology and less density of towers and equipment. Likewise for shared networks. With competition and good regulation, the likely result is lower costs, both for Broadband Internet and for Voice and SMS.

CONCLUSION

An inter-disciplinary consultation with stakeholders and specialists is essential to consider spectrum and sharing of facilities. Companies like Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola and Qualcomm as well as Google, Intel and possibly cable companies (Liberty Global?) should be invited. The EGoM’s goal should be nothing short of a broadband revolution. We need this for
education and vocational training, health care, governance and economic productivity across the board.

shyamponappa@gmail.com

*A rational spectrum allocation policy, BS, July 2, 2009

** Douglas A Galbi, Senior Economist, US FCC

Link to original article

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/managing-spectrum

Making Voices Heard

shweta — 2022-06-27T16:18:36Z

We are happy to announce the launch of our final report on the study ‘Making Voices Heard: Privacy, Inclusivity, and Accessibility of Voice Interfaces in India. The study was undertaken with support from the Mozilla Corporation.

We believe that voice interfaces have the potential to democratise the use of the internet by addressing limitations related to reading and writing on digital text-only platforms and devices. This report examines the current landscape of voice interfaces in India, with a focus on concerns related to privacy and data protection, linguistic barriers, and accessibility for persons with disabilities (PwDs).

The report features a visual mapping of 23 voice interfaces and technologies publicly available in India, along with a literature survey, a policy brief towards development and use of voice interfaces and a design brief documenting best practices and users’ needs, both with a focus on privacy, languages, and accessibility considerations, and a set of case studies on three voice technology platforms. Read and download the full report here

Credits

Research: Shweta Mohandas, Saumyaa Naidu, Deepika Nandagudi Srinivasa, Divya Pinheiro, and Sweta Bisht.

Conceptualisation, Planning, and Research Inputs: Sumandro Chattapadhyay, and Puthiya Purayil Sneha.

Illustration: Kruthika NS (Instagram @theworkplacedoodler). Website Design Saumyaa Naidu. Website Development Sumandro Chattapadhyay, and Pranav M Bidare.

Review and Editing: Puthiya Purayil Sneha, Divyank Katira, Pranav M Bidare, Torsha Sarkar, Pallavi Bedi, and Divya Pinheiro.

Copy Editing: The Clean Copy

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/making-voices-heard

Making the Powerful Accountable

chinmayi — 2014-01-30T06:43:41Z

If powerful figures are not subjected to transparent court proceedings, the opacity in the face of a critical issue is likely to undermine public faith in the judiciary.

Chinmayi Arun's Op-ed was published in the Hindu on January 29, 2014.

It is odd indeed that the Delhi High Court seems to believe that sensational media coverage can sway the Supreme Court into prejudice against one of its own retired judges. Justice Manmohan Singh of the Delhi High Court has said in Swatanter Kumar v. Indian Express and others that the pervasive sensational media coverage of the sexual harassment allegations against the retired Supreme Court judge 'may also result in creating an atmosphere in the form of public opinion wherein a person may not be able to put forward his defence properly and his likelihood of getting fair trial would be seriously impaired.' This Delhi High court judgment has drawn upon the controversial 2011 Supreme Court judgment in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd v. SEBI (referred to as the Gag Order case here) to prohibit the media from publishing headlines connecting retired Justice Swatanter Kumar with the intern's allegations, and from publishing his photograph in connection with the allegations.

Although the Gag Order judgment was criticised at the time that it was delivered Swatanter Kumar v. Indian Express illustrates its detractors' argument more vividly that anyone could have imagined.

Sukumar Muralidharan wrote of Gag Order case that the postponement (of media coverage) order remedy that it created, could become an "instrument in the hands of wealthy and influential litigants, to subvert the course of open justice".

Here we find that although a former Supreme Court judge is pitted against a very young former intern within a system over which he once presided, Justice Manmohan Singh seems to think that it is the judge who is danger of being victimised.

The Swatanter Kumar judgment was enabled by both the Gag Order case as well as the 1966 Supreme Court judgment in Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, which in combination created a process for veiling court proceedings. Naresh Mirajkar stated that courts' inherent powers extend to barring media reports and comments on ongoing trials in the interests of justice, and that such powers do not violate the right to freedom of speech; and the Gag Order case created an instrument - the 'postponement order' - for litigants, such that they can have media reports of a pending case restricted. The manner in which this is used in the Swatanter Kumar judgment raises very worrying questions about how the judiciary views the boundaries of the right to freedom of expression, particularly in the context of reporting court proceedings.

Broad power to restrict reporting

The Gag Order case was problematic: it used arguments for legitimate restraints on media reporting in exceptional circumstances, to permit restrictions on media reporting of court proceedings under circumstances 'where there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial or to proper administration of justice'. The Supreme Court refused to narrow this or clarify what publications would fall within this category. It merely stated that this would depend on the content and context of the offending publication, and that no 'straightjacket formula' could be created to enumerate these categories. This leaves higher judiciary with a broad discretionary power to decide what amounts to
legitimate restraints on media reporting, using an ambiguous standard. Exercise of this power to veil proceedings involving powerful public figures whose actions have public implications, imperils openness and transparency when they are most critical.

Court proceedings are usually open to the public. This openness serves as a check on the judiciary, and ensures public faith in the judiciary. In countries as large as ours, media coverage of important cases ensures actual openness of court proceedings - we are able to follow the arguments made by petitioners who ask that homosexuality be decriminalised, the trial of suspected terrorists and alleged murderers, and the manner in which our legal system handles sexual harassment complaints filed by young women.

When court proceedings are closed to the public (known as 'in-camera' trials) or when media dissemination of information about them is restricted, the openness and transparency of court proceedings is compromised. Such compromise of transparency does take place in many countries, to protect the rights of the parties involved, or prevent miscarriage of justice. For example, child-participants are protected by holding trials in-camera; names of parties to court proceedings are withheld to protect their privacy sometimes; and in countries where juries determine guilt, news coverage that may prejudice the jury is also restricted.

The damage done

Although the Supreme Court stated in principle that the openness of court proceedings should only be restricted where strictly necessary, this appears to lend itself to very varied interpretation. For example, it is very difficult for some of us to understand why it was strictly necessary to restrict media coverage of sexual harassment proceedings in the Swatanter Kumar case. J. Manmohan Singh on the other hand seems to believe that the adverse public opinion will affect the retired judge's chance of getting a fair trial. His judgment also seems to indicate his concern that the sensational headlines will impact the public confidence in the Supreme Court.

The Delhi High Court's apprehension about the effects of the newspaper coverage on the reputation of the judge did not need to translate into a prior restraint on media coverage. They may better have been addressed later, by evaluating a defamation claim pertaining to published material. The larger concerns about the reputation of the judiciary are better addressed by openness: if powerful public figures, especially those with as much influence as a former Supreme Court judge are not subjected to transparent court proceedings, the opacity in the face of such a critical issue is likely to undermine public faith in the judiciary as an institution.Such opacity undermines the purpose of open courts. It is much worse for the reputation of the judiciary than publicised complaints about individual judges.

Since the Delhi High Court ruling, there has been little media coverage of the sexual harassment case. Suppression of media coverage leaves the young woman comparatively isolated. Wide coverage of the harassment complaint involving Justice Ganguly, helped the intern in that case find support. The circulation of information enabled other former interns as well as a larger network of lawyers and activists, reach out to her. This is apart from the general pressure to be fair that arises when a case is being followed closely by the public. Media coverage is often critical to whether someone relatively powerless is able to assert her rights against a very powerful person. This is why media freedom is sacred to democracies.

If the Supreme Court was confident that the high courts in India would use their broad discretionary power under the Gag Order case sparingly and only in the interests of justice, the Swatanter Kumar case should offer it grounds to reconsider. Openness and freedom of expression are not meant to be diluted to protect the powerful - they exist precisely to ensure that even the powerful are held accountable by state systems that they might otherwise be able to sway.

(Chinmayi Arun is research director, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi, and fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-january-29-2014-chinmayi-arun-making-the-powerful-accountable

Making Aadhaar Mandatory: Gamechanger For Governance?

praskrishna — 2016-03-24T06:50:10Z

Why a programme that both the Congress and the BJP have hailed as transformational has divided Parliament this week? The Aadhaar Bill which was passed this week aims at facilitating government benefits and subsidies to citizens said Finance Minister Arun Jaitley.

Yet it became a reason for the Rajya Sabha to raise key questions. On the panel - Chandan Mitra, Rajya Sabha MP, BJP; Ajoy Kumar, Spokesperson, Congress; Tathagat Sathapathy, Lok Sabha MP, Biju Janata Dal; Rajeev Chandrashekhar, Rajya Sabha MP; Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society; and Shekhar Gupta, Senior Journalist.

Video

Link to NDTV website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-march-20-2016-making-aadhaar-mandatory-gamechanger-for-governance

Make our digital backyard safe

Nilanjana Bhowmick — 2019-02-18T14:37:25Z

India has been patting itself on the back for being at the forefront of the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ driven by digitisation. Reports have gushed about the speed and scale of digitisation. But this speed and scale have come at a cost to our privacy.

The article by Nilanjana Bhowmick was published in Economic Times on February 13, 2019.

According to GoI, this digital push has led to 99% of adult Indians having an Aadhaar number in 2017. GoI has also integrated personal information through the Jan Dhan-Aadhaar-Mobile phone trinity (JAM).

A July 2018 IBM report stated that the probability of data breach went up by 8.7% in India over the last four years based on past experiences. The study also stated that malicious or criminal attacks were the root cause for 42% of data breaches, followed by system glitch at 30% and human error at 28%. This 28% has the potential to cause incalculable havoc, which includes the leak of personal information by anyone — from a call centre executive to a bank manager — who has access to it.

The prime reason for our lackadaisical attitude is that most Indians don’t value privacy. We are yet to register the value of personal information — the actual monetary, marketable value. My personal data, for instance, costs roughly $2. If I take that as an average, then at least $2 billion worth of data belonging to 1.3 billion Indians are at stake here. Which is why, when this data is taken without consent, it is a financial crime.

What is perhaps more frightening is that when this data is taken without consent by an untrusted source, it may also land you, victim of a data breach, in jail.

Last month, I had noticed a suspicious movement of money in my account. A large sum of money was deposited in my account in two instalments, withinthe space of 12 hours. And while I am waiting for the issue to be addressed by the authorities — RBI ombudsman, bank customer service, enforcement directorate — the person who wired the money to my account had got hold of my personal information, including my address and phone number.

He kept calling me on my phone and ‘requested’ I give the money ‘back’ to his brother, ‘in cash or cheque’. Then his brother started calling me, demanding I ‘return’ the money to him.

The movement of funds in my account could well have been a money-laundering operation, and if I made the payment to the ‘sender’ as demanded, the money trail would have implicated me. But what’s most alarming is that if I was dealing with criminals, someone from my bank had made them privy to my private information. And this is a top bank with supposedly top-notch security.

Unfortunately, security is woefully lagging behind India’s speedy digitisation. Neither are we investing enough on fortifying the system, nor are we spending enough on postbreach responses. India spends a mere $20,000 in notification costs, compared to the US’ $740,000.

The US also spends $1.76 million in post-data breach response activities, including help desk activities, special investigations and remediation. US and Canadian firms spend $258 and $213 per record respectively to resolve amalicious or criminal attacks. Indian ones, on an average, spend $76 per record.

Yes, digitisation is the future. But let’s first plug the social, institutional and systemic weaknesses in our systems.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-nilanjana-bhowmick-february-13-2019-make-our-digital-backyard-safe

Majority of top politicians' Twitter followers fake: audit

Admin — 2017-11-28T01:10:44Z

A majority of Twitter users following top Indian politicians, including prime minister Narendra Modi, are fake, according to an audit site.

The article by Furquan Moharkan was published in Deccan Herald on October 24, 2017.

Leaders cutting across party lines generate popularity on social media using bots, or automated software, according to the data-analytics website TwitterAudit.

Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, Modi, and Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi have a combined Twitter credibility of just 35%. In other words, 65 out of 100 followers are fake.

Kejriwal, with 1.24 crore followers, has a low credibility of 22.9% on Twitter, according to TwitterAudit. A good 96.34 lakh of Kejriwal’s followers are bots.

Modi, who has two personal Twitter handles (@narendramodi and @narendramodi_in), has a combined credibility of just 37.4%. On the handle @narendramodi, of 3.5 crore followers, just 1.3 crore followers are said to be authentic. The remaining 2.2 crore are marked as bots by TwitterAudit.

The handle @narendramodi_in has 5.99 lakh authentic followers, and 8.01 lakh are again marked as bots.

Congress heir apparent Rahul Gandhi, relatively new to social media, has seen much traction of late. His credibility score is 51.6% on Twitter.

While 19.73 lakh of his followers are authentic, 18.51 lakh are said to be fake.

Rahul’s story
Rahul Gandhi’s handle ‘OfficeofRG’ has been in the news, with a spike in retweets being cited by rivals in the BJP as evidence of bots at work.

The handle got 2,784 retweets in September, as compared to 2,506 for Modi and and 1,722 for Kejriwal. In October, he’s scoring even better, with 3,812 retweets.

Sites like TwitterAudit are helpful, but their results are guesses based on various assumptions about ‘bot-like’ qualities, according to an expert.

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at Centre for Internet and Society, told DH some users were also out on ‘false flag operations,’ besmirching opponents by ‘exposing’ their usage of bots. “The idea that social media bots can shape popular discourse, as is often supposed to be the case with Brexit, is not backed by research,” he said. “A study by Enders Analysis shows the opposite to be the case.”

The score by TwitterAudit is based on the number of tweets, date of the last tweet, and ratio of followers to friends.

A news agency alleged the traction came from ‘bots’ with Russian, Kazakh or Indonesian handles routinely retweeting Rahul’s posts.

Infact, Prime Minister Office handle (@PMOIndia) also has a low credibility of 39.6%, according to twitter audit.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/deccan-herald-furquan-moharkan-october-24-2017-majority-of-top-politicians-twitter-followers-fake

Lost your phone? Here's how you can make your mobile theft-proof

praskrishna — 2017-01-19T02:40:21Z

Losing a phone has become even more costly after the government's push for a cashless society.

The article by Sanjay Kumar Singh was published in the Business Standard on January 16, 2017. Udbhav Tiwari was quoted. Read the full article on Press Reader. Udbhav Tiwari was quoted.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while pitching for cashless transactions, has coined a new phrase — your mobile is a bank. If you really want to use your mobile phone as a bank, remember the costs of losing it are much higher. Earlier, if you lost your mobile phone, there was the risk of misuse of personal data. Now, with most gadgets also carrying mobile wallet apps, there is the added risk of serious financial loss. A number of security solutions, available in the form of external security software or in-built into the phone, can help you track the device, lock it and minimise the probability of misuse.

First, it should give you some satisfaction that if your device is of recent vintage, someone stealing your phone will not be able to use it. Earlier, thieves would wipe the data on the phone (if it had a pin), set up a new account, and use it. But if it is an Apple phone that came out after 2014 or a phone with Android 6.0 Marshmallow or higher operating system (OS), the server will ask for login information of the first account (with which the owner had initially set up the phone). Only then will it allow someone to set up a second account on the same device. Since that information is not likely to be available to the thief, the phone will be of little use to him.

Track your device

Both Apple and Android have in-built features that allow you to track your device if it gets lost. In Apple it is called 'Find my phone' and on Android, 'Android device manager'. When you log in through your Apple or Google account while setting up the phone, this feature gets enabled by default. After your phone is stolen, go online and type 'Find my phone' or 'Android device manager'. Use your account credentials to log in. As long as your phone is on and is connected to the Internet, it will broadcast its location. If it has been switched off or can't connect to the Internet, you will only be able to see the last location from where it transmitted.

Antivirus software for mobile phones also offer tracking features. "Using our mobile security software, users can locate their lost device on a map or receive the location coordinates through an SMS," says Ritesh Chopra, country manager, Norton by Symantec. These software also enable you to lock the lost device remotely either from the antivirus software's web site or by sending an SMS. Chopra informs that you can also remotely delete all the data stored either on the device or its memory card. Users can also trigger an alarm if they think their device is still in the vicinity. "Some antivirus software also allow you to take snapshots of the illegal user once the original user has reported it as stolen," says Udbhav Tiwari, policy officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru.

Take preventive security measures

How well your phone and the data on it are protected after theft will, however, depend on the security measures you adopt proactively while the phone is in your possession.

Install a password: The first stage of protection you should adopt is a pin, pattern lock, or password for your mobile phone. If you don't set up a pin, everything that doesn't require a second level of authentication is available to anyone who gets possession of your device. If you lose your laptop but have logged out of your email or social networking account, the thief can't access them. But on mobile phones most of these services don't require a second level of authentication.

Most alarming from a financial standpoint is the fact that most mobile wallets don't ask for a password before allowing you to transact (Paytm has introduced one recently). "If you have a mobile wallet and don't have a pin on your phone and it gets stolen, the thief can easily transfer money from your wallet to another," says Tiwari. Most mobile and net banking apps, however, require a login and password every time you want to access them, and are hence safer.

Set a pin promptly--a strong one that can't be easily guessed. Numbers associated with you, such as your birthday, are a strict no-no. If your phone carries especially sensitive or important data, eschew pins altogether and use a detailed password with a diverse combination of characters.

Nowadays you can also deploy fingerprint-based unlocking feature on your phone. "By using Fonetastic for the Android platform, you can set the fingerprint unlock feature on your phone," informs Sanjay Katkar, managing director and chief technology officer, Quick Heal Technologies.

Encrypt data on your device: Even if you set up a pin or password, the data on your mobile phone is not protected. Hackers can bypass it and gain access to your files. To protect data, OS developers like Google and Apple encrypt data. The device encryption feature works using something unique on your device, such as its serial number, and your pin. Even if someone gets access to your files via a computer, they will not be able to open them. These files will open only on your phone, and for that they will need your pin, password or pattern lock (presuming you have set one).

In all iOS phones, the moment you set your pin, all files get automatically encrypted. In any Android phone purchased within the last one year (that runs on Android 6.0 Marshmallow by default), the same holds true. But if you have an older Android phone or OS version, you need to enable this feature manually. Go to Settings, then to Security, find an option called 'Encrypt phone' and click on it.

Install an app lock: Some security apps allow you to lock the apps on your phone and also encrypt the files produced by those apps. When you start an app, the security app will ask for a pin. And when you exit an app, it will encrypt the files stored within the app. Go to Google Play or iStore and type 'encrypted file storage' to get the most popular lock-and-encrypt apps. "If you use device-level encryption, you may not need these apps, as the former locks and encrypts the entire device," says Tiwari

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-january-16-2017-sanjay-kumar-singh-lost-your-phone-here-is-how-you-can-make-your-mobile-theft-proof

Los internautas indios se oponen a la censura a través de la Red

praskrishna — 2011-12-09T00:25:11Z

La idea del Gobierno indio de censurar los contenidos de internet ha chocado con el rechazo de la empresas del sector y de los internautas, que están usando las redes sociales para ridiculizar al ministro

La idea del Gobierno de la India de censurar los contenidos de internet ha chocado con el rechazo de la empresas del sector y, sobre todo, de los internautas, que están usando las redes sociales para ridiculizar al ministro del ramo.

Esta semana, el titular de Comunicaciones, Kapil Sibal, reveló que ha contactado con los gestores de la más importantes redes sociales y buscadores para plantear la eliminación de contenidos "objetables", lo cual ha sublevado a los internautas.

Los foros de la red hierven de opiniones en contra de la simple posibilidad de que se censure internet y en el Twitter indio las cadenas de "tuiteos" más seguidas llevan por título el nombre del ministro; la más exitosa es de hecho "IdiotKapilSibal".

Los medios locales afirman que la iniciativa del Ejecutivo indio surgió a raíz de la publicación en algunos portales de fotos deformadas del primer ministro, Manmohan Singh, y de la líder del gobernante Partido del Congreso, Sonia Gandhi.

Esto último ha motivado que muchos de los mensajes que corren por la red bromeen con que la nueva normativa de control debería llamarse SONIA, acrónimo de Social Networking Inspection Act (Norma de inspección de las redes sociales).

La idea del ministro Kapil también ha topado con la más moderada oposición de portales como Facebook o Google, que se han negado a aplicar nuevos sistemas de control más allá de los previstos por las mismas páginas de internet.

Aunque dijeron "reconocer el interés del Gobierno en minimizar el contenido abusivo" en la red, los responsables de Facebook en India recalcaron en un comunicado que su portal ya tiene mecanismos para eliminar textos o imágenes contrarias a su propia normativa interna.

Según datos de Facebook, la India es, con 34 millones, el tercer país del mundo con más usuarios de esta red social, solo por detrás de Estados Unidos e Indonesia.

Google India recalcó en un comunicado, citado por la agencia local IANS, que "hay que diferenciar lo que es controvertido de lo que es ilegal" y también se remitió a los mecanismos de control de contenidos del propio buscador.

La oposición de los operadores y los internautas no ha hecho desistir, de momento, al ministro, que advirtió en una rueda de prensa convocada por sorpresa de que el Gobierno seguirá adelante con la cooperación de las empresas o sin ella.

"Les pediremos información (a los portales web), déjennos tiempo para gestionarlo. Pero una cosa es segura: no permitiremos ese tipo de contenido objetable", dijo Kapil a los medios. El plan del ministro choca, sin embargo, con problemas de diversa índole.

"En el control de internet hay una dificultad técnica, ya que es imposible que una máquina discrimine lo que es 'objetable' de lo que no, por lo se producen multitud de falsos positivos", dijo el responsable de una organización india de estudios sobre la red.

Pero el director del Centro Internet y Sociedad, Sunil Abraham, cree que el problema es más ético que tecnológico, ya que "solo un juez está facultado para eliminar contenidos y debe haber evidencia del daño cometido, algo casi imposible cuando hay censura previa".

This article appeared in the Spanish newspaper Diario de Navarra on 7 December 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this. Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/internautas-indios-se-oponen

Look Who’s Chasing... The Twitter God

praskrishna — 2012-04-10T09:24:52Z

The celebrity isn’t the known face, it’s the Twitter handle that gets the following, writes Arpita Basu in this article published in Outlook's April 2012 issue. Sunil Abraham is quoted in this article.

If Abhishek Asthana felt the jitters as he prepared to face an internship interview on his B-school campus, this 35-character nugget of information would have lifted his spirits: He had a fan on the interview panel. “One of the panelists asked me, ‘Are you the same @GabbbarSingh from Twitter? I’ve been following you for a long time’!” recalls Abhishek, still chuffed. At 25, and in just over two years on Twitter, this Gabbbar Singh’s answer to ‘Kitne aadmi the?’ would be a formidable 19,540. That’s his follower count: people who hang on to his every word, retweeting, replying and generally relishing the irreverence that has made stars out of tweeters like Abhishek.

Twitter, the microblogging site that turned six last month, has raised a smart brood of commentators who go from politics to policies to pop culture and back, riding on 140 characters, trailed by a few thousand followers. Neither netas nor abhinetas, they are rabble-rousers and opinion-makers in their own right. Executives, entrepreneurs, tech geeks, students and creative types, these are ordinary people who have found anything but ordinary fame on the strength of their one-liners alone.

Take @BollywoodGandu, a blockbuster of a Twitter handle with a 57,000-strong audience, including, till recently, big-ticket followers like Karan Johar and Abhishek Bachchan. “They unfollowed me for reasons only they know,” shrugs the man behind the tweets, who’s used to having celebs follow him and then dropping him when they “don’t like” what he writes (Here’s a teaser: “Aishwarya looks like a mannequin in #Robot posters. Oh wait, on second thought, that kinda makes sense”.) The 30-year-old tweet icon, an industry insider who swears by Amol Palekar comedies, relishes the effect he has on filmwallahs; film crews have been known to scroll through his timeline during shooting breaks. “It makes me want to storm in like Russell Crowe in Gladiator and yell ‘Are you not entertained?’!” he adds dramatically.

Entertained, yes. Enlightened? You bet. These new stars on the media horizon, explains Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, “provide information, comments, and a sense of humour and cynicism that is missing from mainstream media”. With Twitter launching its Hindi version in September last year, language too is no longer a barrier. Again, on this turf, the threshold for entry is much lower. “Unlike TV,” Abraham elaborates, “where you have to look and dress a certain way and then say something interesting, these tweeters hold people’s attention sitting in their homes. We don’t even know what they look like.”

Which only makes them more relatable. After all, they are swimming in the same fish bowl as everyone else, right? And feeling the same fears when the water rises too high above the head. Only, they express it way better. Snappy, sharp and always questioning, their unforgiving, emperor-has-no-clothes approach scores with people fed up with what Twitter veteran Ramesh Srivats calls “curated mainstream media”.

Photograph by Amit Haralkar

Varun Grover @JayHind 11724 followers
Famous tweet Keep army busy. Give them an IPL team of their own.

It’s no wonder that popular media wants a piece of them too. Varun Grover, a 32-year-old engineer-turned-satirist whose witty observations made the Twitter handle @JayHind a hit, landed a TV deal: to script, along with his team, the spoofy The Late Night Show on Colors. “Tweets are my research; a scratchboard for the gags,” Varun reveals. The show, which carries forward JayHind TV’s online sketches, looks at current goings-on with a shovelful of salt. “Having grown up in Lucknow, analysing politics came naturally to me,” says Varun.

There’s more that comes naturally to the Tweet brigade—the art of getting Twitterverse’s 12 million inhabitants (that’s just counting India) to listen, for one. Writer and IT professional Arnab Ray @greatbong (see accompanying column) recalls how his legion of followers grew over three years, drawn in by his “funny, spontaneous, politically incorrect tweets that honour no holy cows”. “I am not a celebrity, so there was no opening day surge for me,” Arnab quips, conceding that his reputation as Greatbong the blogger preceded him on Twitter. For Rake$£ Jhunjhunwala ['Fake Jhunjhunwala'] @jhunjhunwala too, tweeting about blog posts got his foot in the door back in 2009, when very few had warmed to Twitter in India. Today, some 43,000-odd Tweeple prick up their ears to catch what this trader-investor, video-gamer and combat sports freak has to say during his “recreation hours”. Blogging also helped Priyanka Sachar @twilightfairy increase her tweet-worth. Priyanka passed up eleven-and-a-half years as a computer engineer to become a fine art wedding photographer, and regularly tweets links to her work. She hardly blogs now, having “lost patience with lengthy posts”, and can’t say enough about the mercurial nature of Twitter, though her strike rate of 70-plus tweets on a good day says enough.

Photograph by Narendra Bisht

Priyanka Sachar @twilightfairy 14913 followers
Famous tweet ...markets are full of Easter eggs already. On Navratre. That’s the way the Indian cookie crumbles.

“We have to stay in the moment. Or if possible, before the moment,” offers Utsav Chakraborty @SatanBhagat, who counts power-lister Anand Mahindra amongst his fans. The 21-year-old media grad, “bottom-tier stand-up comic” and er... not the biggest fan of Chetan Bhagat, distills the essence of a quality tweet: “A view is just a view without analogies and wordplay. No one likes raw chicken. You have to marinate, cook, season, garnish and serve it on a warm plate. We’re all assembly line gourmet chefs.”

Each, though, has perfected his or her own specialty dish, be it satire, humour, current affairs, business dos, boudoir don’ts.... Then there is Twitter’s tryst with literature—Twisters. Twitter stories penned, like their nomenclature, by Arjun Basu, a Montreal-based writer and publishing veteran in his 40s, whose Twitter readership stands at 1,46,895 and counting. “After my first tweet wishing I had ordered another vodka on a flight, I wrote a story, which came in at 140 characters with some editing. Within a day, I had written a few and then I became a bit obsessed.” That’s understating it: Arjun has written 5,000 Twisters since. One of them—“They tolerated the ennui of their jobs, bought off by promises of spectacular riches sometime in the future. At retirement, they bought guns”—has been made into an award-winning short film, Life. He hopes to compile his Twisters into a book—or at least put them on posters or coffee mugs.

Another compilation of tweets worth a shot—@Kweezzz trivia. Conscientiously hosting tweet-sized quizzes on everything from Guatemalan currency to the inventor of earmuffs to the actress whose “toothbrush fell in the toilet”, Kweezzz is instant food for the brain.

There’s grist for gossip mills too. Malini Agarwal @MissMalini has much to reveal about “Bollywood and the Bombay party circuit unplugged”. With tidbits from fashion shows, who-wore-it-best couture contests, and shirtless celeb twitpics (sample this: “Lean, mean and undressed Rana Daggubati”) she keeps her tweet wattage high. Devotees leave posts at her shrine on the hour.

Photograph by Nilotpal Baruah

Ramesh Srivats @rameshsrivats 35798 followers
Famous tweet Two weapons against corruption: Lokpal and Chappal

For Ramesh Srivats, it’s all in a day’s work to have fans come up to him to say hello. Characteristically, he makes light of it: “My bald head makes me easy to recognise!” Utsav’s celeb moment translates into “an occasional free meal or a job offer”. “Other than that, my ‘celebrity’ mostly extends to Linkedin and Google+ invites,” he says modestly.

For some Twitterati, think Pragmatic Desi, The Comic Project, Bombay Addict and C_gawker, it’s enough for just the pseudonyms to be recognised. They refuse to step out from behind their famous handles. Hear it from BollywoodGandu: “I never thought anonymity would be a criterion for popularity, but I was wrong. As Indians, our first response to anyone usually is ‘Tu kaun hai?’. And when you don’t know the answer, it adds to the mystery,” he says. It adds on immunity too, as you throw that virtual chappal. Anonymity and accountability are, after all, inversely linked. Social scientist Shiv Visvanathan insists that the freedom of expression which Twitter affords exists only up to a point: “If you keep making outrageous comments, there will come a quiet point when people will say ‘See you later’. The loudmouths disappear over time. What works best is self-policing.”

Photograph by Jignesh Mistry

Abhishek Asthana @GabbbarSingh 19540 followers
Famous tweet No. of hours you spend wearing shorts in a day/no. of hours wearing trousers = work/life balance index

Besides its obvious merit, the anonymous Twitter handle is also a great creative opportunity. No wonder the handles, alter-egos for their owners, are attention magnets themselves. Abhishek recalls how starting the Gabbbar Singh account to write a blogpost about a Twitter-savvy cast of Sholay, got him 50 followers in five minutes flat, and a thousand in 20 days.

Bollywood Gandu’s irresistible handle, he says, was inspired by a meeting with “a certain Bollywood star and his/her friends (read chamchas)”. He adds, “The irony is that the real ‘gaali’ in my handle is ‘Bollywood’.” Many in his Twitter circle would have noted that already. Twitter’s wit wagon, after all, is teeming with like-minded tweeple, befriending each other, following each other. Ashish Shakya, for instance, follows Gursimran Khamba and Overrated Outcast, who, in turn follow him; Ramesh Srivats and Lakshmipathy Bhat @bhatnaturally follow each other. Yes, it is a small world. But by no means a closed one. Most of them also follow those who could become potential ‘material’ for tweets. JayHind follows news sites to keep himself updated, just as diligently as he keeps up with “unintentionally funny people who falter almost daily” (read celebs).

With the variety and versatility on offer, it’s a goldmine out there for anyone who can keep pace with a tweet a minute. The format helps, of course, as Abraham points out: “It forces people to be brief. You don’t have to wade through too much information to find the next big thing.” Or star. After all, in the democratic republic of Twitter, all it takes to go from voice in the wilderness to vox popular is to say something worthwhile. And find people who’ll gladly repeat it after you.

Read the original in Outlook

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/look-who-s-chasing-twitter-god

Look what the state just did to you

praskrishna — 2011-06-16T10:51:58Z

The government's recent introduction of new rules in the IT Act allows 'offensive' material on any website to be removed within 36 hours. Did the state just arm everyone to shoot the messenger, online?Th

Let's say a newspaper published a contentious piece that begs to be questioned in the court of law. What would happen if instead of the journalist who wrote the article or the editor who published it, we decide to sue the newspaper boy who delivered the paper? Irrational? According to bloggers and digital media experts, new rules notified under the Information Technology Act 2008, has armed everyone to shoot the messenger, online. Will this challenge our fundamental freedom of speech and expression, and the fabric of the Internet as we know it?

In April this year, the Department of Information Technology (DIT) introduced a new set of rules called Intermediary Due Diligence. According to it, every citizen has the right to complain against any digital content to the website host or any ISP that serves the content or any cybercafe from which the content is available, etc (legally referred to as intermediary). In other words, any website that carries content Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, blogs and even newspaper websites can be sued for the content they carry, even if it is a third party that has written it.

So, even though over 190 million users worldwide publish over a billion comments a week on social broadcast medium Twitter, if someone were to find a particular 'Tweet' offensive even if it hasn't been written by an Indian they can ask Twitter to remove the tweet, failing which, they can sue the site.

According to the rules, every intermediary (read website) is now required to hire a grievance officer, to whom the offended party can send their complaint. The website is given 36 hours, to remove the comment, post or content, failing which the website is liable to judicial action.

The website owner no longer possesses the discretion to ignore complaints and uphold the freedom of speech of his site's users without risking liability himself.

Is the rule unconstitutional?

According to Pranesh Prakash, programme manager for Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru, the new rules are unconstitutional.

The pre-existing section 79 of the IT Act states that intermediaries (that is to say, websites) are not liable for third party information (such as comments, posts, tweets or posts) as long as they are mere conduits, observe 'due diligence' and don't encourage criminal activity. The new rules were meant to clarify what 'due diligence' meant. A draft of the rules was released in February, and the final rules were added to the IT Act in April.

"The rules have gone far beyond mere clarification. The Department has imposed rules that insist that intermediaries play the role of a judge and executioner on mere complaint, without any opportunity for the other side to be heard," says Prakash.

In a press release issued on May 11 this year, the DIT stated, "The Government adopted a transparent process for formulation of the Rules under the Information Technology Act. The draft rules were published on the Department of Information Technology website for comments [in February] and were widely covered by the media. None of the Industry Associations and other stakeholders objected to the formulation, which is now being cited in some section of media."

However, media analysts disagree. "The DIT was expected to create a public listing of comments submitted. From what we've seen on their website, they haven't," says Nikhil Pahwa, editor of Medianama, a website that offers analyses of news on various forms of media, including the Internet.

Interestingly, some Members of Parliament registered their protest against the draft rules.

Rajya Sabha member Rajeev Chandrashekar registered his protest against the draft rules during Zero Hour on March 22, and received the support of three other MPs Kumar Deepak Das, P Rajeev, Mahendra Mohan.

His argument was also published on his website: "The execution of these rules could result in a shutting down of the Internet, which is the main form of expression for growing Indians, if the information posted is found inconvenient to Government, institutions or individuals. This would also take away the right to freedom of expression of bloggers and other Internet users in the country. The Government must call for transparent public consultation/public opinion."

Restricting freedom of speech

What's more, say lawyers, the ground on which a person can find a comment offensive is vague and open to interpretation.

Apar Gupta, a lawyer associated with the Software Freedom Law Centre in New Delhi, says, "The grounds to block content are arbitrary. In a situation like this, any intelligent critique, discourse etc can be deemed offensive and no one can do anything about it."

Nor is it mandatory for the website to inform the person, who has posted a comment that someone else found offensive, before removing it.

"In a case like this, the so-called violator does not even have the opportunity to be heard or defend himself, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice," adds Prakash.

Websites no longer have a final say in regulating content, as they are legally bound to remove matter that has been found offensive. The removed content can be re-instated if the website wins a lawsuit against the complainant if it chooses to go through with one in the first place.

"Suppose you do not like what I have posted on Twitter, and file a complaint with the grievance officer.

Twitter has two options remove the content and be safe or keep it and be liable. What do you think is easier for Twitter? Obviously, it wouldn't want to be party to hundreds of lawsuits," explains Gupta.

Before the rules were notified, a police complaint could be registered, a civil suit filed, or a 'nodal officer' required to be designated in all government departments could be approached, which would be followed by a judicial probe. If the content was eventually found offensive, the website would be asked to remove it.

"Now, websites will lose protection from law if they don't take down 'offensive' content. They have no incentive to uphold the freedom of speech of their users. Instead, they have been provided incentives to take down all content about which they receive complaints without applying their minds," Prakash points out.

Then again, in our country where anything from a paragraph in a history textbook to a 15-second jig by a politician can be deemed offensive, analysts fear that the rules can be rampantly misused.

"The rule will be used by conservatives and not liberals. Lots of organised people (political parties, bureaucrats etc) will take down all content against them. People could end up using the rule to challenge a website and making money by agreeing for an out of court settlement," fears Gupta.

"It can become a tool for harassment," Shivam Vij, a member of radical critique blog Kafila, adds tersely.

The new clause has the potential to immediately address truly offensive material, such as child pornography, online grooming of young girls and boys by paedophiles (such as the recent case of Paul Wilson who was convicted in Birmingham for grooming 20 minors online) and videos taken on the sly (one such case led Rutgers university student Tyler Clementi to commit suicide, when a video of him having sex with a fellow male student was posted online). However, it is a double-edged sword that calls for further debate on what can be posted and what can be removed.

One way to do this is to make information public. If a site is blocked or content removed, there should be a public notice issued and a list should be maintained of all requests for removals or blocks. Also, the reason for removing or blocking a piece of content, and the authority responsible for taking that decision should be made public. When a user visits a blocked site, there should be a notice about the block, and a specific recourse mentioned for getting the block removed.

This article by Yoshita Sengupta was published in Mid Day on June 12, 2011. Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/state-just-did-to-you