We are anonymous, we are legion

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

UNICEF & Nasscom Foundation Workshop on Child Online Protection

praskrishna — 2016-02-14T11:01:15Z

Jyoti Panday attended UNICEF & Nasscom Foundation Workshop on Child Online Protection (COP) held on 8 February 2016 at Hotel Claridges in New Delhi.

The workshop was organized to raise awareness of the Child Online Protection and the UNICEF -International Telecom Union COP Guidelines for Industry. The COP Guidelines offer general recommendations for industry on protecting children's safety when using ICT technologies. The guidelines also provide a sector specific checklist that recommend actions to respect and support children's rights. Recommendations are provided for mobile operators, ISPs,content providers, online retailers and app developers,UGC interactive and social media service providers, national and public service broadcasters, hardware manufacturers, OS developers and app stores.

At the workshop the preliminary findings of the Rapid Assessment on Child Online Protection in India, carried out by UNICEF was shared. The discussions were structured as the beginning of a dialogue on Children and Internet with the private sector and other stakeholders and to discuss the incorporation of children’s rights dimensions into key ICT industry initiatives on COP. I participated in the panel discussions on the current scenario on child online protection in India and the role of the industry. I raised the issue of lack of transparency in blocking and taking down content online that deemed is harmful for children.

See the Concept Note
Click for the Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/unicef-nasscom-foundation-workshop-on-child-online-protection

Database on Big Data and Smart Cities International Standards

vanya — 2016-02-11T15:49:45Z

The Centre for Internet and Society is in the process of mapping international standards specifically around Big Data, IoT and Smart Cities. Here is a living document containing a database of some of these key globally accepted standards.

1. International Organisation for Standardization: ISO/IEC JTC 1 Working group on Big Data (WG 9 )

● Background

- The International Organization for Standardization /International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) Joint Technical Committee (JTC) 1, Information Technology announced the creation of a Working Group (WG) focused on standardization in connection with big data.

- JTC 1 is the standards development environment where experts come together to develop worldwide standards on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for integrating diverse and complex ICT technologies.^{^[1]}

- The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) holds the secretariat to JTC 1 and the ANSI-accredited U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Administrator to JTC 1 is theInterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS) ^{^[2]}, an ANSI member and accredited standards developer (ASD). InterNational Committee for Information Technology standards (INCITS) is a technical committee on Big Data to serve as the US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to JTC 1/WG 9 on Big Data/ pending approval of a New Work Item Proposal (NWIP). The INCITS/Big Data will address standardization in the areas assigned to JTC 1/WG 9. ^{^[3]}

- Under U.S. leadership, WG 9 on Big Data will serve as the focus of JTC 1's big data standardization program.

● Objective

- To identify standardization gaps.

- Develop foundational standards for Big Data.

- Develop and maintain liaisons with all relevant JTC 1 entities

- Grow the awareness of and encourage engagement in JTC 1 Big Data standardization efforts within JTC 1. ^{^[4]}

● Status

- JTC 1 appoints Mr. Wo Chang to serve as Convenor of the JTC 1 Working Group on Big Data.

- The WG has set up a Study Group on Big Data.

2. International Organisation for Standardization: ISO/IEC JTC 1 Study group on Big Data

● Background

- The ISO/IEC JTC1 Study Group on Big Data (JTC1 SGBD) was created by Resolution 27 at the November, 2013 JTC1 Plenary at the request of the USA and other national bodies for consideration of Big Data activities across all of JTC 1.

- A Study Group (SG) is an ISO mechanism by which the convener of a Working Group (WG) under a sub-committee appoints a smaller group of experts to do focused work in a specific area to identify a clear group to focus attention on a major area and expand the manpower of the committee.

- The goal of an SG is to create a proposal suitable for consideration by the whole WG, and it is the WG that will then decide whether and how to progress the work.^{^[5]}

● Objective

JTC 1 establishes a Study Group on Big Data for consideration of Big Data

activities across all of JTC 1 with the following objectives:

- Mapping the existing landscape: Map existing ICT landscape for key technologies and relevant standards /models/studies /use cases and scenarios for Big Data from JTC 1, ISO, IEC and other standards setting organizations,

- Identify key terms : Identify key terms and definitions commonly used in the area of Big Data,

- Assess status of big data standardization : Assess the current status of Big Data standardization market requirements, identify standards gaps, and propose standardization priorities to serve as a basis for future JTC 1 work, and

- Provide a report with recommendations and other potential deliverables to the 2014 JTC 1 Plenary. ^{^[6]}

● Current Status

- The study group released a preliminary report in the year 2014, which can be accessed here : http://www.iso.org/iso/big_data_report-jtc1.pdf.

3. The National Institute of Standards and Technology Big Data Interoperability Framework :

● Background

- NIST is leading the development of a Big Data Technology Roadmap which aims to define and prioritize requirements for interoperability, portability, reusability, and extensibility for big data analytic techniques and technology infrastructure to support secure and effective adoption of Big Data.

- To help develop the ideas in the Big Data Technology Roadmap, NIST is creating the Public Working Group for Big Data which Released Seven Volumes of Big Data Interoperability Framework on September 16, 2015.^{^[7]}

● Objective

- To advance progress in Big Data, the NIST Big Data Public Working Group (NBD-PWG) is working to develop consensus on important, fundamental concepts related to Big Data.

● Status

- The results are reported in the NIST Big Data Interoperability Framework series of volumes. Under the framework, seven volumes have been released by NIST, available here:

http://bigdatawg.nist.gov/V1_output_docs.php

4. IEEE Standards Association

● Background:

- The IEEE Standards Association introduced a number of standards

related to big-data applications.

● Status:

The following standard is under development:

- IEEE P2413

"IEEE Standard for an Architectural Framework for the Internet of Things (IoT)" defines the relationships among devices used in industries, including transportation and health care. It also provides a blueprint for data privacy, protection, safety, and security, as well as a means to document and mitigate architecture divergence.^{^[8]}

5. ITU

● Background:

- The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has announced its first standards for big data services, entitled 'Recommendation ITU-T Y.3600 "Big data - cloud computing based requirements and capabilities"', recognizing the need for strong technical standards considering the growth of big data to ensure that processing tools are able to achieve powerful results in the areas of collection, analysis, visualization, and more.^{^[9]}

● Objective:

- Recommendation Y.3600 provides requirements, capabilities and use cases of

cloud computing based big data as well as its system context. Cloud computing

based big data provides the capabilities to collect, store, analyze, visualize and

manage varieties of large volume datasets, which cannot be rapidly transferred

and analysed using traditional technologies.^{^[10]}

- It also outlines how cloud computing systems can be leveraged to provide big-data services.

● Status:

- The standard was relseased in the year 2015 and is avaiabe here: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.3600-201511-I .

Smart cities

1. ISO Standards on Smart Cities

● Background:

- ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, established a strategic advisory group in 2014 for smart cities, comprised of a wide range of international experts to advise ISO on how to coordinate current and future Smart City standardization activities, in cooperation with other international standards organizations, to benefit the market.^{^[11]}

- Seven countries, China, Germany, UK, France, Japan, Korea and USA, are currently involved in the research.

● Objective:

- The main aims of which are to formulate a definition of a Smart City

- Identify current and future ISO standards projects relating to Smart Cities

- Examine involvement of potential stakeholders, city requirements, potential interface problems. ^{^[12]}

● Status:

- ISO/TC 268, which is focused on sustainable development in communities, has one working group developing city indicators and other developing metrics for smart community infrastructures. In early 2016 this committee will be joined by another - IEC - systems committee. The first standard produced by ISO/TC 268 is ISO/TR 37150:2014.

- ISO/TR 37150:2014 Smart community infrastructures -- Review of existing activities relevant to metrics: this standard provides a review of existing activities relevant to metrics for smart community infrastructures. The concept of smartness is addressed in terms of performance relevant to technologically implementable solutions, in accordance with sustainable development and resilience of communities, as defined in ISO/TC 268. ISO/TR 37150:2014 addresses community infrastructures such as energy, water, transportation, waste and information and communications technology (ICT). It focuses on the technical aspects of existing activities which have been published, implemented or discussed. Economic, political or societal aspects are not analyzed in ISO/TR 37150:2014.^{^[13]}

- ISO 37120:2014 provides city leaders and citizens a set of clearly defined city performance indicators and a standard approach for measuring each. Though some indicators will be more helpful for cities than others, cities can now consistently apply these indicators and accurately benchmark their city services and quality of life against other cities.^{^[14]} This new international standard was developed using the framework of the Global City Indicators Facility (GCIF) that has been extensively tested by more than 255 cities worldwide. This is a demand-led standard, driven and created by cities, for cities. ISO 37120 defines and establishes definitions and methodologies for a set of indicators to steer and measure the performance of city services and quality of life. The standard includes a comprehensive set of 100 indicators - of which 46 are core - that measures a city's social, economic, and environmental performance. ^{^[15]}

The GCIF global network, supports the newly constituted World Council on City Data - a sister organization of the GCI/GCIF - which allows for independent, third party verification of ISO 37120 data.^{^[16]}

- ISO/TS 37151 and ISO/TR 37152 Smart community infrastructures -- Common framework for development & operation: outlines 14 categories of basic community needs (from the perspective of residents, city managers and the environment) to measure the performance of smart community infrastructures. These are typical community infrastructures like energy, water, transportation, waste and information and communication technology systems, which have been optimized with sustainable development and resilience in mind. ^{^[17]} The committee responsible for this document is ISO/TC 268, Sustainable development in communities, Subcommittee SC 1, Smart community infrastructures. The objective is to develop international consensus on a harmonised metrics to evaluate the smartness of key urban infrastructure.^{^[18]}

- ISO 37101 Sustainable development of communities -- Management systems -- Requirements with guidance for resilience and smartness : By setting out requirements and guidance to attain sustainability with the support of methods and tools including smartness and resilience, it can help communities improve in a number of areas such as: Developing holistic and integrated approaches instead of working in silos (which can hinder sustainability), Fostering social and environmental changes, Improving health and wellbeing, Encouraging responsible resource use and Achieving better governance. ^{^[19]} The objective is to develop a Management System Requirements Standard reflecting consensus on an integrated, cross-sector approach drawing on existing standards and best practices.

- ISO 37102 Sustainable development & resilience of communities - Vocabulary . The objective is to establish a common set of terms and definitions for standardization in sustainable development, resilience and smartness in communities, cities and territories since there is pressing need for harmonization and clarification. This would provide a common language for all interested parties and stakeholders at the national, regional and international levels and would lead to improved ability to conduct benchmarks and to share experiences and best practices.

- ISO/TR 37121 Inventory & review of existing indicators on sustainable development & resilience in cities : A common set of indicators useable by every city in the world and covering most issues related to sustainability, resilience and quality of life in cities. ^{^[20]}

- ISO/TR 12859:2009 gives general guidelines to developers of intelligent transport systems (ITS) standards and systems on data privacy aspects and associated legislative requirements for the development and revision of ITS standards and systems. ^{^[21]}

2. International Organisation for Standardization: ISO/IEC JTC 1 Working group on Smart Cities (WG 11 )

● Background:

- Serve as the focus of and proponent for JTC 1's Smart Cities standardization program and works for development of foundational standards for the use of ICT in Smart Cities - including the Smart City ICT Reference Framework and an Upper Level Ontology for Smart Cities - for guiding Smart Cities efforts throughout JTC 1 upon which other standards can be developed.^{^[22]}

● Objective:

- To develop a set of ICT related indicators for Smart Cities in collaboration with ISO/TC 268.

- Identify JTC 1 (and other organization) subgroups developing standards and related material that contribute to Smart Cities.

- Grow the awareness of, and encourage engagement in, JTC 1 Smart Cities standardization efforts within JTC 1.

● Status

- Ms Yuan Yuan is the Convenor of this Working group.

- The purpose was to provide a report with recommendations to the JTC 1 Plenary in the year 2014, to which a preliminary report was submitted. ^{^[23]}

3. International Organisation for Standardization: ISO/IEC JTC 1 Study Group (SG1) on Smart Cities

● Background:

- The Study Group (SG) - Smart Cities was established in 2013^{^[24]} SG 1 will explicitly consider the work going on in the following committees: ISO/TMB/AG on Smart Cities, IEC/SEG 1, ITU-T/FG SSC and ISO/TC 268. ^{^[25]}

● Objective :

- To examine the needs and potentials for standardization in this area.

● Status:

- SG 1 is paying particular attention to monitoring cloud computing activities, which it sees as the key element of the Smart Cities infrastructure. DIN's Information Technology and Selected IT Applications Standards Committee (NIA (www.nia.din.de)) is formally responsible for ISO/IEC JTC1 /SG 1, but an autonomous national mirror committee on Smart Cities does not yet exist and the work is being overseen by DIN's Smart Grid steering body. ^{^[26]}

- A preliminary report has been released in the 2014, available here- http://www.iso.org/iso/smart_cities_report-jtc1.pdf

4. ITU

● Background:

- ITU members have established an ITU-T Study Group titled "ITU-T Study Group 20: IoT and its applications, including smart cities and communities" ^{^[27]}

- ITU-T has also established a Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities (FG-SSC).

● Objective:

- The study group will address the standardization requirements of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, with an initial focus on IoT applications in smart cities.

- The focus group shall assess the standardization requirements of cities aiming to boost their social, economic and environmental sustainability through the integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in their infrastructures and operations.

- The Focus Group will act as an open platform for smart-city stakeholders - such as municipalities; academic and research institutes; non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and ICT organizations, industry forums and consortia - to exchange knowledge in the interests of identifying the standardized frameworks needed to support the integration of ICT services in smart cities.^{^[28]}

● Status:

- The study group will develop standards that leverage IoT technologies to address urban-development challenges.

- The FG-SSC concluded its work in May 2015 by approving 21 Technical Specifications and Reports. ^{^[29]}

- So far, ITU-T SG 5 FG-SSC has issued the following reports- Technical report "An overview of smart sustainable cities and the role of information and communication technologies", Technical report "Smart sustainable cities: an analysis of definitions", Technical report "Electromagnetic field (EMF) considerations in smart sustainable cities", Technical specifications "Overview of key performance indicators in smart sustainable cities", Technical report "Smart water management in cities".^{^[30]}

5. PRIPARE Project :

● Background:

- The 7001 - PRIPARE Smart City Strategy is to to ensure that ICT solutions integrated in EIP smart cities will be compliant with future privacy regulation.

- PRIPARE aims to develop a privacy and security-by-design software and systems engineering methodology, using the combined expertise of the research community and taking into account multiple viewpoints (advocacy, legal, engineering, business).

● Objective:

- The mission of PRIPARE is to facilitate the application of a privacy and security-by-design methodology that will contribute to the advent of unhindered usage of Internet against disruptions, censorship and surveillance, support its practice by the ICT research community to prepare for industry practice and foster risk management culture through educational material targeted to a diversity of stakeholders.

● Status:

- Liaison is currently on-going so that it becomes a standard (OASIS and ISO).^{^[31]}

6. BSI-UK

● Background:

- In the UK, the British Standards Institution (BSI) has been commissioned by the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to conceive a Smart Cities Standards Strategy to identify vectors of smart city development where standards are needed.

- The standards would be developed through a consensus-driven process under the BSI to ensure good practise is shared between all the actors. ^{^[32]}

● Objective:

The BIS launched the City's Standards Institute to bring together cities and key

industry leaders and innovators :

- To work together in identifying the challenges facing cities,

- Providing solutions to common problems, and

- Defining the future of smart city standards.^{^[33]}

● Status:

The following standards and publications help address various issues for a city to

become a smart city:

- The development of a standard on Smart city terminology (PAS 180)

- The development of a Smart city framework standard (PAS 181)

- The development of a Data concept model for smart cities (PAS 182)

- A Smart city overview document (PD 8100)

- A Smart city planning guidelines document (PD 8101)

- BS 8904 Guidance for community sustainable development provides a decision-making framework that will help setting objectives in response to the needs and aspirations of city stakeholders

- BS 11000 Collaborative relationship management

- BSI BIP 2228:2013 Inclusive urban design - A guide to creating accessible public spaces.

7. Spain

● Background:

- AENOR, the Spanish standards developing organization (SDO), has issued two new standards on smart cities: the UNE 178303 and UNE-ISO 37120. These standards joined the already published UNE 178301.

● Objective:

- The texts, prepared by the Technical Committee of Standardization of AENOR on Smart Cities (AEN / CTN 178) and sponsored by the SETSI (Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society of the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism), aim to encourage the development of a new model of urban services management based on efficiency and sustainability.

● Status:

Some of the standards that have been developed are:

- UNE 178301 on Open Data evaluates the maturity of open data created or held by the public sector so that its reuse is provided in the field of Smart Cities.

- UNE 178303 establishes the requirements for proper management of municipal assets.

- UNE-ISO 37120 which collects the international urban sustainability indicators.

- Following the publication of these standards, 12 other draft standards on Smart Cities have just been made public, most of them corresponding to public services such as water, electricity and telecommunications, and multiservice city networks. ^{^[34]}

8. China

● Background:

Several national standardization committees and consortia have started

standardization work on Smart Cities, including:

- China National IT Standardization TC (NITS),

- China National CT Standardization TC,

- China National Intelligent Transportation System Standardization TC,

- China National TC on Digital Technique of Intelligent Building and Residence Community of Standardization Administration, China Strategic Alliance of Smart City Industrial Technology Innovation^{^[35]}

● Objective:

- In the year 2014, all the ministries involved in building smart cities in China joined with the Standardization Administration of China to create working groups whose job is to manage and standardize smart city development, though their activities have not been publicized. ^{^[36]}

● Status:

- China will continue to promote international standards in building smart cities and improve the competitiveness of its related industries in global market.

- Also, China's Standardization Administration has joined hands with National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in establishing and implementing standards for smart cities.

- When building smart cities, the country will adhere to the ISO 37120 and by the year 2020, China will establish 50 national standards on smart cities. ^{^[37]}

9. Germany

● Background :

- Member of European Innovation Partnership (EIP) for Smart Cities and Communities DKE (German Commission for Electrical, Electronic & Information Technologies) and DIN (GermanInstitute for Standardization) have developed a joint roadmap and Smart Cities recommendations for action in Germany.

● Objective:

- Its purpose is to highlight the need for standards and to serve as a strategic template for national and international standardization work in the field of smart city technology.

- The Standardization Roadmap highlights the main activities required to create smart cities. ^{^[38]}

● Status:

- An updated version of the standardization roadmap was released in the year 2015. ^{^[39]}

10. Poland

● Background:

- A coordination group on Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities (SSCC) was set up in the beginning of 2014 to monitor any national standardization activities.

● Objective:

- It was decided to put forward a proposal to form a group at the Polish Committee for Standardization (PKN) providing recommendations for smart sustainable city standardization in Poland.

● Status:

It has two thematic groups:

- GT 1-2 on terminology and Technical Bodies in PKN Its scope covers a collection of English terms and their Polish equivalents related to smart and sustainable development of cities and communities to allow better communication among various smart city stakeholders. This includes the preparation of the list of Technical Bodies (OT) in PKN involved in standardization activities related to specific aspects of smart and sustainable local development and making proposals concerning the allocation of standardization works to the relevant OT in PKN.

- GT 3 for gathering information and the development and implementation of a work programme Its scope includes identifying stakeholders in Poland, and gathering information on any national "smart city" initiatives having an impact on environment-friendly development, sustainability, and liveability of a city. The group is also tasked with developing a work programme for GZ 1 based on identified priorities for Poland. Finally, its aim is to conduct communication and dissemination of activities to make the results of GZ 1 visible. ^{^[40]}

11. Europe

● Background:

- In 2012, the European standardization organizations CEN and CENELEC founded the Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities Coordination Group (SSCC-CG), which is a Coordination Group established to coordinate standardization activities and foster collaboration around standardization work. ^{^[41]}

● Objective:

- The aim of the CEN-CENELEC-ETSI (SSCC-CG) is to coordinate and promote European standardization activities relating to Smart Cities and to advise the CEN and CENELEC (Technical) and ETSI Boards on standardization activities in the field of Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities.

- The scope of the SSCC-CG is to advise on European interests and needs relating to standardization on Smart and Sustainable cities and communities.

● Status:

- Originally conceived to be completed by the end of 2014, SSCC-CG's mandate has been extended by the European standards organizations CEN, CENELEC and ETSI by a further two years and will run until the end of 2016.^{^[42]}

- The SSCC-CG does not develop standards, but reports directly to the management boards of the standardization organizations and plays an advisory role. Current members of the SSCC.CG include representatives of the relevant technical committees, the CEN/CENELEC secretariat, the European Commission, the European associations and the national standardization organizations.^{^[43]}

- CEN/CENELEC/ETSI Joint Working Group on Standards for Smart Grids: The aim of this document is to provide a strategic report which outlines the standardization requirements for implementing the European vision of smart grids, especially taking into account the initiatives by the Smart Grids Task Force of the European Commission. It provides an overview of standards, current activities, fields of action, international cooperation and strategic recommendations^{^[44]}

12. Singapore

● Background:

- In the year 2015, SPRING Singapore, the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) and the Information Technology Standards Committee (ITSC), under the purview of the Singapore Standards Council (SSC), have laid out an Internet of Things (IoT) Standards Outline in support of Singapore's Smart Nation initiative.

● Objective:

- Realising importance of standards in laying the foundation for the nation empowered by big data, analytics technology and sensor networks in light of Singapore's vision of becoming a Smart Nation.

● Status:

Three types of standards - sensor network standards, IoT foundational standards and domain-specific standards - have been identified under the IoT Standards Outline. Singapore actively participates in the ISO Technical Committee (TC) working on smart city standards.^{^[45]}

^{^[1]} ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information Technology, http://www.iso.org/iso/jtc1_home.html

^{^[2]} The InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards, JTC 1 Working Group on Big Data, http://www.incits.org/committees/big-data

^{^[3]} ISO/IEC JTC 1 Forms Two Working Groups on Big Data and Internet of Things, 27th January 2015, https://www.ansi.org/news_publications/news_story.aspx?menuid=7&articleid=5b101d27-47b5-4540-bca3-657314402591

^{^[4]} JTC 1 November 2014 Resolution 28 - Establishment of a Working Group on Big Data, and Call for Participation, 20th January 2015, http://jtc1sc32.org/doc/N2601-2650/32N2625-J1N12445_JTC1_Big_Data-call_for_participation.pdf

^{^[5]} SD-3: Study Group Organizational Information, https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-3-study-group-organizational-information

^{^[6]} ISO/IEC JTC 1 Study Group on Big Data (BD-SG), http://jtc1bigdatasg.nist.gov/home.php

^{^[7]} NIST Released V1.0 Seven Volumes of Big Data Interoperability Framework (September 16, 2015),http://bigdatawg.nist.gov/home.php

^{^[8]} Standards That Support Big Data, Monica Rozenfeld, 8th September 2014, http://theinstitute.ieee.org/benefits/standards/standards-that-support-big-data

^{^[9]} ITU releases first ever big data standards, Madolyn Smith, 21st December 2015, http://datadrivenjournalism.net/news_and_analysis/itu_releases_first_ever_big_data_standards#sthash.m3FBt63D.dpuf

^{^[10]} ITU-T Y.3600 (11/2015) Big data - Cloud computing based requirements and capabilities, http://www.itu.int/itu-t/recommendations/rec.aspx?rec=12584

^{^[11]} ISO Strategic Advisory Group on Smart Cities - Demand-side survey, March 2015, http://www.platform31.nl/uploads/media_item/media_item/41/62/Toelichting_ISO_Smart_cities_Survey-1429540845.pdf

^{^[12]} The German Standardization Roadmap Smart City Version 1.1, May 2015, https://www.vde.com/en/dke/std/documents/nr_smartcity_en_v1.1.pdf

^{^[13]} ISO/TR 37150:2014 Smart community infrastructures -- Review of existing activities relevant to metrics, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=62564

^{^[14]} Dissecting ISO 37120: Why this new smart city standard is good news for cities, 30th July 2014, http://smartcitiescouncil.com/article/dissecting-iso-37120-why-new-smart-city-standard-good-news-cities

^{^[15]} World Council for City Data, http://www.dataforcities.org/wccd/

^{^[16]} Global City Indicators Facility, http://www.cityindicators.org/

^{^[17]} How to measure the performance of smart cities, Maria Lazarte, 5th October 2015

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.htm?refid=Ref2001

^{^[18]} http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/energyefficiency/files/files/documents/events/slideslairoctober2014.pdf

^{^[19]} A standard for improving communities reaches final stage, Clare Naden, 12th February 2015,

http://www.iso.org/iso/news.htm?refid=Ref1932

^{^[20]} http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/energyefficiency/files/files/documents/events/slideslairoctober2014.pdf

^{^[21]} ISO/TR 12859:2009 Intelligent transport systems -- System architecture -- Privacy aspects in ITS standards and systems, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52052

^{^[22]} ISO/IEC JTC 1 Information technology, WG 11 Smart Cities, http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:14:0::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:12973,25

^{^[23]} Work of ISO/IEC JTC1 Smart Ci4es Study group , https://interact.innovateuk.org/documents/3158891/17680585/2+JTC1+Smart+Cities+Group/e639c7f6-4354-4184-99bf-31abc87b5760

^{^[24]} JTC1 SAC - Meeting 13 , February 2015, http://www.finance.gov.au/blog/2015/08/05/jtc1-sac-meeting-13-february-2015/

^{^[25]} The German Standardization Roadmap Smart City Version 1.1, May 2015, https://www.vde.com/en/dke/std/documents/nr_smartcity_en_v1.1.pdf

^{^[26]} The German Standardization Roadmap Smart City Version 1.1, May 2015, https://www.vde.com/en/dke/std/documents/nr_smartcity_en_v1.1.pdf

^{^[27]} ITU standards to integrate Internet of Things in Smart Cities, 10th June 2015, https://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2015/22.aspx

^{^[28]} ITU-T Focus Group Smart Sustainable Cities, https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/0b/04/T0B0400004F2C01PDFE.pdf

^{^[29]} Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities, http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/ssc/Pages/default.aspx

^{^[30]} The German Standardization Roadmap Smart City Version 1.1, May 2015, https://www.vde.com/en/dke/std/documents/nr_smartcity_en_v1.1.pdf

^{^[31]} 7001 - PRIPARE Smart City Strategy, https://eu-smartcities.eu/commitment/7001

^{^[32]} Financing Tomorrow's Cities: How Standards Can Support the Development of Smart Cities, http://www.longfinance.net/groups7/viewdiscussion/72-financing-financing-tomorrow-s-cities-how-standards-can-support-the-development-of-smart-cities.html?groupid=3

^{^[33]} BSI-Smart Cities, http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/

^{^[34]} New Set of Smart Cities Standards in Spain, https://eu-smartcities.eu/content/new-set-smart-cities-standards-spain

^{^[35]} Technical Report, M2M & ICT Enablement in Smart Cities, Telecommunication Engineering Centre, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India, November 2015, http://tec.gov.in/pdf/M2M/ICT%20deployment%20and%20strategies%20for%20%20Smart%20Cities.pdf

^{^[36]} Smart City Development in China, Don Johnson, 17th June 2014, http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/smart-city-development-in-china/

^{^[37]} China to continue develop standards on smart cities, 17th December 2015, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2015wic/2015-12/17/content_22732897.htm

^{^[38]} The German Standardization Roadmap Smart City, April 2014, https://www.dke.de/de/std/documents/nr_smart%20city_en_version%201.0.pdf

^{^[39]} This version of the Smart City Standardization Roadmap, Version 1.1, is an incremental revision of Version 1.0. In Version 1.1, a special focus is placed on giving an overview of current standardization activities and interim results, thus illustrating German ambitions in this area.

^{^[40]} SSCC-CG Final report Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities Coordination Group, January 2015, https://www.etsi.org/images/files/SSCC-CG_Final_Report-recommendations_Jan_2015.pdf

^{^[41]} Orchestrating infrastructure for sustainable Smart Cities , http://www.iec.ch/whitepaper/pdf/iecWP-smartcities-LR-en.pdf

^{^[42]} Urbanization- Why do we need standardization?, http://www.din.de/en/innovation-and-research/smart-cities-en

^{^[43]} CEN-CENELEC-ETSI Coordination Group 'Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities' (SSCC-CG), http://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/Sectors/SmartLiving/smartcities/Pages/SSCC-CG.aspx

^{^[44]} Final report of the CEN/CENELEC/ETSI Joint Working Group on Standards for Smart Grids, https://www.etsi.org/WebSite/document/Report_CENCLCETSI_Standards_Smart%20Grids.pdf

^{^[45]} SPRING Singapore Supported Close to 600 Companies in Standards Adoption, and Service Excellence Projects , 12th August 2015, http://www.spring.gov.sg/NewsEvents/PR/Pages/Internet-of-Things-(IoT)-Standards-Outline-to-Support-Smart-Nation-Initiative-Unveiled-20150812.aspx

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/database-on-big-data-and-smart-cities-international-standards

India Sets Strict New Net Neutrality Rules

praskrishna — 2016-02-11T01:53:19Z

In India, advocates of net neutrality have welcomed new rules by the telecom regulator that have blocked efforts by Facebook to offer free but limited access to the web in the country’s fast growing Internet market.

The article by Anjana Pasricha was published in Voice of America on February 9, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

In a widely awaited ruling, the Telecom Regulator Authority of India (TRAI) said on Monday that “no service provider shall charge differential pricing on the basis of application, platforms or websites or sources." It will impose penalties of $735 a day if the regulations are broken.

Kiran Jonnalagadda, who was among a group of 10 that launched an impassioned campaign called Save the Internet, says they have won a “fabulous” victory against large corporations to ensure equal web access for millions.

“We were up against the most powerful companies in the world, we had no chance of fighting Airtel last year, we had no chance of fighting Facebook. I think the only reason it worked is that we were on the side of facts, the opposition was not,” says Jonnalagadda.

Debate on Airtel

The campaign on net neutrality snowballed into a nationwide public debate after an Indian telecom company, Airtel, launched a marketing platform last April on which it planned to offer customers access with no data charges to certain Internet services and sites.

In recent weeks, the focus turned to “Free Basics”, a service being offered by Facebook on mobile phones to a handful of sites in areas such as communication, healthcare, and education.

Saying it wanted to vastly expand Internet access in poor, rural areas, Facebook had launched a massive advertising campaign in support of the platform. Only about 300 million in the country of 1.2 billion people have access to the net, many just through mobile devices.

But campaigners slammed Free Basics as “poor Internet for poor people” and said it would create a “walled garden” in which Facebook would control the content it offered users. Leading Indian technology entrepreneurs and university professors also called on the government to guard against attempts by Internet giants to turn the country into a “digital colony.”

Many of them have applauded the regulator’s move to strengthen net neutrality.

Ban on differential pricing

However, some are raising questions about the the complete ban on differential pricing announced by the regulator. That includes the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society research group, which says India has put in place the most stringent net neutrality regulations across the world. Its executive director, Sunil Abraham, says TRAI cited the examples of the Netherlands and Chile, but the ban on differential pricing in those countries is not as absolute as the one notified in India.

“We think that if proper technological safeguards and other market safeguards are put in place, it would be possible to have both — to have rapid growth in Internet access and reduced harm that emerge[s] from network neutrality violations,” says Abraham.

Indeed, the last word may not have been said on net neutrality in India as big telecom operators are expected to mount legal challenges to the regulator’s ruling in the coming months.

Expressing disappointment with India’s ruling, the Cellular Operators Association of India has called the ban on differential pricing a “welfare reducing measure” that could block an avenue for “less advantaged citizens to move to increased economic growth and prosperity by harnessing the power of the Internet.”

In a statement, Facebook has said “we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”

But after having tasted victory, the volunteers at Save the Internet, who have grown from about 10 to 100 in the last year, have already set their sights on another aspect of net neutrality besides differential pricing.

“The campaign is not going to retire because this is not the end of it. There is also discrimination on the basis of speed, which the regulator has not taken up yet,” says Jonnalagadda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-anjana-pasricha-february-9-2016-india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules

Facebook's Fall from Grace: Arab Spring to Indian Winter

sunil — 2016-02-11T15:51:34Z

Facebook’s Free Basics has been permanently banned in India! The Indian telecom regulator, TRAI has issued the world’s most stringent net neutrality regulation! To be more accurate, there is more to come from TRAI in terms of net neutrality regulations especially for throttling and blocking but if the discriminatory tariff regulation is anything to go by we can expect quite a tough regulatory stance against other net neutrality violations as well.

The article was published in First Post on February 9, 2016. It can be read here.

Even the regulations it cites in the Explanatory Memorandum don’t go as far as it does. The Dutch regulation will have to be reformulated in light of the new EU regulations and the Chilean regulator has opened the discussion on an additional non-profit exception by allowing Wikipedia to zero-rate its content in partnership with telecom operators.

Bravo to Nikhil Pahwa, Apar Gupta, Raman Chima, Kiran Jonnalagadda and the thousands of volunteers at Save The Internet and associated NGOs, movements, entrepreneurs and activists who mobilized millions of Indians to stand up and petition TRAI to preserve some of the foundational underpinnings of the Internet. And finally bravo to Facebook for having completely undermined any claim to responsible stewardship of our information society through their relentless, shrill and manipulative campaign filled with the staggeringly preposterous lies. Having completely lost the trust of the Indian public and policy-makers, Facebook only has itself to blame for polarizing what was quite a nuanced debate in India through its hyperbole and setting the stage for this firm action by TRAI.

And most importantly bravo to RS Sharma and his team at TRAI for several reasons for the notification of “Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016” aka differential pricing regulations. The regulation exemplifies six regulatory best practices that I briefly explore below.

Transparency and Agility: Two months from start to finish, what an amazing turn around! TRAI was faced with unprecedented public outcry and also comments and counter-comments. Despite visible and invisible pressures, from the initial temporary ban on Free Basics to RS Sharma’s calm, collected and clear interactions with different stakeholders resulted in him regaining the credibility which was lost during the publication of the earlier consultation paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTTs) services. Despite being completely snowed over electronically by what Rohin Dharmakumar dubbed as Facebook’s DDOS attack, he gave Facebook one last opportunity to do the right thing which they of course spectacularly blew.

Brevity and Clarity: The regulation fits onto three A4-sized pages and is a joy to read. Clarity is often a result of brevity but is not necessarily always the case. At the core of this regulation is a single sentence which prohibits discriminatory tariffs on the basis of content unless it is a “data service over closed electronic communications network”. And unlike many other laws and regulations, this regulation has only one exemption for offering or charging of discriminatory tariffs and that is for “emergency services” or during “grave public emergency”. Even the best lawyers will find it difficult to drive trucks through that one. Even if imaginative engineers architect a technical circumvention, TRAI says “if such a closed network is used for the purpose of evading these regulations, the prohibition will nonetheless apply”. Again clear signal that the spirit is more important than the letter of the regulation when it comes to enforcement.

Certainty and Equity: Referencing the noted scholar Barbara Van Schewick, TRAI explains that a case-by-case approach based on principles [standards] or rules would “fail to provide much needed certainty to industry participants…..service providers may refrain from deploying network technology” and perversely “lead to further uncertainty as service providers undergoing [the] investigation would logically try to differentiate their case from earlier precedents”. Our submission from the Centre for Internet and Society had called for more exemptions but TRAI went with a much cleaner solution as it did not want to provide “a relative advantage to well-financed actors and will tilt the playing field against those who do not have the resources to pursue regulatory or legal actions”.

What next? Hopefully the telecom operators and Facebook will have the grace to abide with the regulation without launching a legal challenge. And hopefully TRAI will issue equally clear regulations on throttling and blocking to conclude the “Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top Services” consultation process. Critically, TRAI must forbear from introducing any additional regulatory burdens on OTTs, a.k.a Internet companies based on unfounded allegations of regulatory arbitrage. There are some legitimate concerns around issues like taxation and liability but that has to be addressed by other arms of the government. To address the digital divide, there are other issues outside net neutrality such as shared spectrum, unlicensed spectrum and shared backhaul infrastructure that TRAI must also prioritize for regulation and deregulation.

Without doubt other regulators from the global south will be inspired by India’s example and will hopefully take firm steps to prevent the rise of additional and unnecessary gatekeepers and gatekeeping practices on the Internet. The democratic potential of the Internet must be preserved through enlightened and appropriate regulation informed by principles and evidence.

The writer is Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru. He says CIS receives about $200,000 a year from WMF, the organisation behind Wikipedia, a site featured in Free Basics and zero-rated by many access providers across the world).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/first-post-february-9-2016-sunil-abraham-facebook-fall-from-grace-arab-spring-to-indian-winter

India bans Facebook’s ‘free’ Internet for the poor

praskrishna — 2016-02-10T02:53:49Z

India’s telecom regulator said Monday that service providers cannot charge discriminatory prices for Internet services, a blow to Facebook’s global effort to provide low-cost Internet to developing countries.

The article by Annie Gowen was published in Washington Post on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs. The article was also mirrored by NDTV.

Facebook’s “Free Basics” program provides a pared-down version of Facebook and weather and job listings to some 15 million mobile-phone users in 37 countries around the world.

When it debuted in India in April, however, Free Basics immediately ran afoul of Internet activists who said it violated the principle of “net neutrality,” which holds that consumers should be able to access the entire Internet unfettered by price or speed.

On Monday, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India agreed, prohibiting data service providers from offering or charging different prices for data — even if it’s free. The Free Basics program has run into trouble elsewhere in the world recently — with Egypt banning it and Google clarifying that it pulled out of the application during a testing phase in Zambia.

In a statement, Facebook said that while the company was “disappointed with the outcome, we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”

In an interview before the ruling, Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president for Internet.org — the umbrella organization of the global effort — said India’s negative reaction has been “unique versus other markets we’ve seen. We’ve been welcomed with open arms in many countries.”

Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg launched the program to great fanfare in 2013, partnering with other international tech firms on a mission to connect the 4 billion people in the world without Internet access — which he says is a basic human right.

India has 300 million mobile Internet users but still has close to 1 billion people without proper Internet access. But it is second only to the United States in number of Facebook users, with 130 million, with vast expansion potential as Facebook works to increase its user base beyond the developed world.

Yet the Free Basics program was controversial from the start in India, where critics accused Facebook of creating a “walled garden” for poor users that allowed them access to only a portion of the web that Facebook controlled.

Dozens of well-known tech entrepreneurs, university professors and tech industry groups spoke out against it, saying that the curated app, with its handpicked weather, job and other listings, put India’s scrappy start-ups and software developers at a disadvantage.

On Monday, Vijay Shekhar Sharma, the founder and creator of India’s payment application PayTM, applauded the regulator’s move.

He had been among the program’s fiercest critics, dubbing Free Basics “poor Internet for poor people” and comparing Facebook’s actions to that of British colonialists and their East India Co.

“India, Do u buy into this baby internet?” Sharma tweeted in December. “The East India company came with similar ‘charity’ to Indians a few years back!”

“In a country like India that’s just taking off, it’s important that there is an equal playground for every app developer,” he said in an interview.

In December, India’s regulator put out a position paper on differential pricing and asked for public comment on whether such programs were fair.

In response, Facebook launched a public relations blitz, with television and newspaper advertisements, billboards and an opinion piece by Zuckerberg in the Times of India in which he argued against criticism that the social-media giant was providing the service simply to expand its user base.

Facebook also engineered a prompt to users that sent “robo” letters of support for Free Basics to India’s telecommunications regulator. The regulator, flooded with form letters, was not amused.

Facebook’s behavior may not have helped its cause, some analysts said.

“Facebook went overboard with its propaganda [and] convinced ‘the powers that be’ that it cannot be trusted with mature stewardship of our information society,” said Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

Yet David Kirkpatrick, the author of “The Facebook Effect,” says that Zuckerberg is determined to see the program succeed.

“Facebook is relentless,” he said. “Zuckerberg has said from the beginning his goal is to make the world more open and connected. And that’s a phrase he continues to repeat 10 years later.”

The regulator had asked Facebook, and its local telecom partner, Reliance Communications, to suspend Free Basics’ operations during the public comment period. But the social-media giant and its partner appeared to flout the suspension order, with the program continuing to be operational on Reliance SIM cards.

A spokesman for Reliance earlier said that the applications was in “testing mode” and that it was not commercially promoting the product.

The regulatory body said Monday that anybody violating the order in the future will be subject to a fine of about $735 a day. It will return to review the policy in two years to see if it is effective.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor

A Megacorp’s Basic Instinct

praskrishna — 2016-02-04T13:53:05Z

Bolstered by academia and civil society, TRAI stands its ground against FB’s Free Basics publicity blitz.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Hours before the January 31 deadline for telecom regulator TRAI to give its opinion on Facebook’s controversial and expensive Free Basics pitch—which seeks to give India’s poor “free” access to certain partner websites—the consensus seems to be building up against the social media giant. “If there is cannibalising of the internet through services like Free Basics, the internet will be split; it will parcel out and slice the internet. Its future is at stake,” says a senior government official on condition of anonymity.

In a climate where the tech-savvy Modi government is seen to be close to the online trinity of Facebook, Google and Twitter, TRAI’s defiant stance in favour of net neutrality stands out. There’s a lot at stake. India’s position becomes crucial as few countries in the world have clearly defined laws on net neutrality or have taken a stand on it. For Facebook, there’s a lot more at stake. India is its second-largest user base after the US (it is banned in China), so it is leaving no stone unturned. The massive Rs 300-crore electronic and print media campaign is an indication of that.

TRAI sources say they are ready for any adverse onslaught and they are under no pressure from the PMO. The view gaining ground in government is that FB is trying to create a walled garden where it controls what people see and surf and what they can access online. While this will be offered to consumers for free—the technical term is differential pricing—the websites part of Free Basics will have to pay for being on the platform. Outlook’s queries to FB remained unanswered at the time of going to press.

At an ‘open house’ meeting to discuss TRAI’s consultation paper on differential pricing last week, regulator Ram Sevak Sharma stood firm against the barrage of pro-Free Basics opinions that flowed from FB, telecom operators and some members of the public. TRAI’s message was clear: FB’s tactics of moulding public opinion by stealth will not be acceptable in India. In the past few weeks, there have been bitter exchanges between TRAI and FB over the latter’s responses to a consultation paper on differential pricing.

TRAI’s defiant stand draws from an unprecedented show of strength by civil society against Free Basics and FB’s intentions. Says former Aadhar man Nandan Nilekani, “Free Basics is certainly against net neutrality. How can a solution be neutral, if it disproportionately benefits a particular website or business on the internet? Today, 400 million Indians are online. They came online because of the inherent value the internet offers. How can a walled garden of 100-odd websites provide the same value?”

What does Free Basics mean for PM Modi’s Digital India campaign? Being a walled garden, thousands of start-ups without adequate budgets to pay for such dedicated service will be forced to stay out of it. Similar questions are being raised about government services that are increasingly coming online. The concern is that all government traffic will have to pass through FB servers. The senior government official quoted above agrees, “In such a scenario, the government will have to approach FB to make its websites accessible on the free service which is neither desirable nor safe.”

The other fear is what happens to public data if it goes through a service like Free Basics. There is fear that a lot of government and public data will be put through Free Basics once government services start coming online. If Free Basics is for the poor who are also beneficiaries of government services, FB too can access this data. Says Prabir Purkayastha, chairman, Knowledge Commons, “FB says public service will be available through Free Basics but can public service be given through a private initiative? Public data is valuable and can’t be handed over to a private company.”

Few again are convinced by FB’s claim that Free Basics aims to make the internet accessible to the poor, with the many services offered through it. “The claim that the poor will get access to the internet is false,” warns Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. “Free Basics gives access to less than 100 of the one billion plus websites on the world wide web. Those in the walled garden will be treated quite differently.”

What gives TRAI a shot in the arm is that, for the first time, academia has put its weight behind Free Basics opponents. In a signed statement, several IIT and IISc Bangalore professors have said that Free Basics won’t serve the purpose FB is proposing and is not good for the country. “The problem is the internet being provided (via Free Basics) is a shrunken and sanitised version of the real thing. Free Basics is not a good proposal for the long-term development of a healthy and democratic internet setup in India,” says Amitabha Bagchi, IIT Delhi professor and one of the signatories to the memo.

Of course, many of the experts Outlook spoke to say that the government, and not FB, should be responsible for providing free internet to the people. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director, IT for Change, “The government is sitting on Rs 40,000 crore of USO funds. It can surely utilise that to provide a free basic data package to people in India. Basic government services and emergency services should essentially be free.” Nilekani is also in favour of the government providing free internet to people. “The internet is a powerful poverty alleviation tool.... Government can do a direct benefit transfer for data, a more market-neutral way of achieving the goal of getting everyone on the internet,” he told Outlook.

Legally, though, there may be issues in stopping FB from introducing its Free Basics platform in India. Says Singh, “Technically, the Indian government may not be able to stop FB from introducing Free Basics in India as it is just a platform. What the government has to do is to stop telcos from collaborating with it for free internet because Indian telcos, not FB, mediate access to the internet.”

The demand for the government and TRAI to come clean on net neutrality has reached fever pitch. Experts like Nilekani feel that net neutrality, which does not allow zero rating and differential pricing based on telcos looking at the contents of the subscriber’s data packets, should be enshrined in law through an act of Parliament, the way countries like the US have done. TRAI has also proposed two models where the internet is provided free initially and charged at a later stage and another where content providers and websites reimburse the cost of browsing directly to consumers. Both these proposals have not found favour with experts who say that these are unworkable and only the government should disburse free internet.

In any case, all this is a matter of detail—important, no doubt. The key question is, what happens to Free Basics if TRAI rules in favour of net neutrality and goes against FB? “This is going to be a long-drawn-out battle as FB will certainly challenge this in court,” says the government official. After spending Rs 300 crore on publicity, there is no way it will roll over and die.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct

India, Egypt say no thanks to free Internet from Facebook

praskrishna — 2016-02-03T01:49:25Z

ALWAR, India — Connecting people to the Internet is not easy in this impoverished farming district of wheat and millet fields, where working camels can be glimpsed along roads that curve through the low-slung Aravalli Hills.

The article by Annie Gowen was published in Washington Post on January 28, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

So when Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg helicoptered in about a year ago to visit a small computer lab and tout Internet for all, Osama Manzar, director of India’s Digital Empowerment Foundation, was thrilled.

But when Manzar tried Facebook’s limited free Internet service, he was bitterly disappointed. The app, called Free Basics, is a pared-down version of Facebook with other services such as weather reports and job listings.

“I feel betrayed — not only betrayed but upset and angry,” Manzar said. “He said we’re going to solve the problem with access and bandwidth. But Facebook is not the Internet.”

Zuckerberg launched his sweeping Internet.org initiative in 2013 as a way to provide 4 billion people in the developing world with Web access, which he says he sees as a basic human right.

But the initiative has hit a major snag in India, where in recent months Free Basics has been embroiled in controversy — with critics saying that the app, which provides limited access to the Web, does a disservice to the poor and violates the principles of “net neutrality,” which holds that equal access to the Internet should be unfettered to all.

Activist groups such as Save the Internet, professors from leading universities and tech titans such as Nandan Nilekani, the co-founder of Infosys, have spoken out against it. Another well-known Indian entrepreneur dubbed it “poor Internet for poor people.”

The debate escalated in recent weeks after India’s telecommunications regulator suspended Free Basics as it weighs whether such plans are fair, with new rules expected by the end of the month.

A week later, Free Basics was banned in Egypt with little explanation, prompting concern that the backlash could spread to other markets. More recently, Google pulled out of the app in Zambia after a trial period. An estimated 15 million people are using Free Basics in 37 countries, including 1 million in India.

[India’s Modi wants to woo Silicon Valley, but privacy fears grow at home]

“It’s a very important test case for what will be India’s network neutrality regime,” said Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

India’s debate could affect the way other countries address the question of whether it is fair for Internet service providers to price websites differently. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s rules on net neutrality went into effect only in June.

Officials at Facebook launched an advertising blitz to counteract the negative publicity. “Who could possibly be against this?” Zuckerberg wondered in a Times of India editorial on Dec. 28.

“I think we’ve been a bit surprised by the strong reaction,” said Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president for Internet.org. “Fundamentally, the reason for the surprise is that the program is doing good. It’s bringing people online who are moving onto the broader Internet.”

India, a country of 1.2 billion, has the second-highest number of Internet users in the world, but an estimated 80 percent of the population does not have Internet access.

India’s tech-savvy prime minister, Narendra Modi, is trying to combat this with an ambitious “Digital India” plan to link 250,000 village centers with fiber-optic cable and extend mobile coverage. He has turned to the Indian tech community as well as Silicon Valley for help, securing an agreement with Google to provide free WiFi in railway stations.

India has 130 million Facebook users, second only to the United States, and is a key market as the social-media giant looks to expand beyond the developed world, where its growth has slowed.

“If Facebook manages to get another half a billion users in India, that’s a valuable set of eyeballs to sell to a political party or corporation,” Abraham said.

[Is India the next frontier for Facebook?]

Facebook has long said that its program is about altruism, not eyeballs.

But it does reap new customers. Those who buy a SIM card from Facebook’s local mobile partner, Reliance Communications, are then prompted to pay for additional data. About 40 percent who sign up for Free Basics buy a data plan to move to the wider Web after 30 days, Daniels said.

The service is still running despite the India suspension. A Reliance spokesman said it is in “testing mode” and is not being promoted.

“The thing people forget about Free Basics is that it’s intended to be a temporary transition for people to give them a taste of the Internet and sign up. It’s a marketing program for the carrier in some sense,” said David Kirkpatrick, author of “The Facebook Effect.” But he added: “The idea that it’s some kind of alternative Internet that’s a discriminatory gesture to the poor is the prevailing view among the Indian intelligentsia. It’s fundamentally misunderstood.”

Facebook has pledged to open up to new scrutiny the selection process for companies with new applications, Daniels said. That is a response to concerns by many in India’s tech community that Facebook’s process put India’s fledgling start-ups at a disadvantage.

The project’s proponents say that India’s needs are so great it cannot afford to suspend one program that could help.

Mahesh Uppal, a telecommunications consultant, notes that more than 10 percent of the country does not have mobile phone coverage and that India’s progress in extending fiber-optic cable to village centers is proceeding at a glacial pace. Modi had set a goal of linking all 250,000 by 2016, but only 27,000 have cable so far and it is ready for use in only 3,200, according to a government report.

In comparison, some 80 percent of China’s villages are linked by broadband.

[Inside the Indian temple that draws America’s tech titans]

In Alwar district in the northern state of Rajasthan, many remember when Zuckerberg came to visit but fewer know about Free Basics.

“I’ve heard it’s free and by Facebook and you don’t have to pay for it,” said Umer Farukh, 43, a folk musician. “But I don’t think Facebook should control it. The Internet should be for everybody.”

Farukh has only been computer literate for two years, but he’s already emailing and using YouTube to post videos and promote his band.

He’s become such a proponent that he has donated space for one of Manzar’s computer centers — part of a government initiative to build cyber-hubs in minority communities — and encouraged the female members of his family to take classes, which is rare in his conservative community.

Farukh says that challenges to connecting India go far beyond data plans and fiber-optic cable or the government broadband that often sputters out. Wages are low, and hours are long. Only about half of the women in his state are literate, and about a quarter of the young women in his neighborhood are kept at home and not educated.

“This place is very backward,” he said. “India as a society is lagging far behind in terms of Internet.”

In the small nearby community of Roja Ka Baas, ringed by fields of blooming mustard greens, residents are still awaiting the opening of their planned WiFi center. They are struggling along on cheap mobile phones with slow 2G spectrum until then, they said.

Sakir Khan, 14, said that once the Internet finally arrived in this village, the first thing he would do would be to sign up for Facebook.

Farheen Fatima and Subuhi Parvez contributed to this report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-january-28-2016-india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook

Facebook’s Fight to Be Free

praskrishna — 2016-01-31T09:11:52Z

In India, Mark Zuckerberg can’t give Internet access away.

The article by Adi Narayan and Bhuma Shrivastava was published in Bloomberg Businessweek on January 15, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Thanks mostly to its mobile-ad profits, Facebook has had a great couple of years. According to its most recent earnings report, in November, the company’s quarterly ad revenue rose 45 percent, to $4.3 billion, from the same period in 2014. It has more than 1.5 billion monthly users, just over half of all the people online anywhere. Keeping up its rate of user growth—more than 100 million people each year—will only get tougher.

A big part of the problem is that a lot of potential new eyeballs are in places where Internet access is patchy at best. Some of Facebook’s grander projects anticipated that issue: It has satellites and giant solar-powered planes that beam Wi-Fi down to areas that don’t have it. And then there’s Free Basics, the two-year-old project Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg has called an online 911. In about three dozen countries so far, Free Basics—also known as Internet.org—includes a stripped-down version of Facebook and a handful of sites that provide news, weather, nearby health-care options, and other info. One or two carriers in a given country offer the package for free at slow speeds, betting that it will help attract new customers who’ll later upgrade to pricier data plans.

Facebook says Free Basics is meant to make the world more open and connected, not to boost the company’s growth. Either way, online access is an especially big deal in India, where there are 130 million people using Facebook, 375 million people online, and an additional 800 million-plus who aren’t. (The social network remains blocked in China.) That may help explain why Zuckerberg spent part of the first few weeks of his paternity leave appealing personally to Indians to lobby for Free Basics. On Dec. 21 the Indian government suspended the program, offered in the country by carrier Reliance Communications, while it weighs public comments and arguments from Internet freedom advocates who say preferential treatment for Facebook’s services threatens to stifle competition.

“An emerging country like India needs to provide the consumer with incentives to get onto the Internet.” —Neha Dharia, an analyst at consulting firm Ovum

Since the government’s telecommunications regulator announced the suspension, Facebook has bought daily full-page ads in major newspapers and plastered billboards with pictures of happy farmers and schoolchildren it says would benefit from Free Basics. Zuckerberg has frequently made the case himself via phone or newspaper op-ed, asking that Indians petition the government to approve his service. “If we accept that everyone deserves access to the Internet, then we must surely support free basic Internet services,” the CEO wrote in a column published in the Times of India, the nation’s largest daily paper, shortly before the new year. “Who could possibly be against this?”

Opponents, including some journalists and businesspeople, say Free Basics is dangerous because it fundamentally changes the online economy. If companies are allowed to buy preferential treatment from carriers, the Internet is no longer a level playing field, says Vijay Shekhar Sharma, founder of Indian mobile-payment company Paytm. A spokesman for Sharma confirmed that Zuckerberg called to discuss the matter but declined to comment further.

India’s Internet base will grow with or without Facebook’s help, says Nikhil Pahwa, a tech blogger and co-founder of the Save the Internet coalition, which opposes Free Basics. “We don’t see Free Basics as philanthropy. We see it as a land grab,” says Pahwa. When dealing with the famously protectionist Indian government, that’s a pretty good argument. An April attempt by India’s top mobile carrier to underwrite data costs for certain apps drew heavy criticism, and the carrier, Bharti Airtel, has put the program on hold.

None of that means Facebook can’t help get more Indians online, says Neha Dharia, an analyst at consulting firm Ovum. “An emerging country like India needs to provide the consumer with incentives to get onto the Internet,” she says. “What Facebook Free Basics is doing is a bit extreme, but what you do need is a bit of a middle path.”

Internet sampler packages such as Free Basics can also help carriers like Reliance, the fourth-largest in India, upgrade their often-struggling networks, Dharia says. That’s a symbiotic process, because customers may quickly grow frustrated with the bare-bones service and demand more. Free Basics doesn’t have Gmail, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter, or Bollywood music streaming. (Video will account for 64 percent of India’s data traffic by March 2017, consulting firm Deloitte estimates.) It’s meant to be a steppingstone. Facebook says about 40 percent of Free Basics users start paying for data plans within a month.

But again, if Free Basics catches on in India, people may just keep paying for data to use more Facebook and forget about some of those other services, says Dharia. “Facebook is the Internet” to a lot of people in India, she says. Google, whose services are most conspicuously absent from the Free Basics roster, declined to comment.

India’s telecommunications regulator says Facebook’s advocates and opponents have until Jan. 14 to file public comments; it’s received about 2.4 million responses so far, most of them form letters supporting Free Basics. The government’s decision could also ripple beyond India, says Pranesh Prakash, a Free Basics opponent and the policy director at the nonprofit Centre for Internet & Society in Bengaluru. In the weeks since India suspended Free Basics, Egypt, which had done the same back in October, once again shut down the Facebook plan, though the government wouldn’t say why. The India fight “will be a reputational challenge for Facebook,” says Prakash. “It will set the tone for Free Basics debate in other countries.”

The bottom line: Facebook’s free data plan in India faces strong opposition from local businesses and Internet freedom advocates.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-businessweek-adi-narayan-bhuma-shrivastava

Facebook is no charity, and the ‘free’ in Free Basics comes at a price

praskrishna — 2016-01-30T11:32:47Z

Who could possibly be against free internet access? This is the question that Mark Zuckerberg asks in a piece for the Times of India in which he claims Facebook’s Free Basics service “protects net neutrality”.

Free Basics is the rebranded Internet.org, a Facebook operation where by partnering with local telecoms firms in the developing world the firm offers free internet access – limited only to Facebook, Facebook-owned WhatsApp, and a few other carefully selected sites and services.

Zuckerberg was responding to the strong backlash that Free Basics has faced in India, where the country’s Telecom Regulatory Authority recently pulled the plug on the operation while it debates whether telecoms operators should be allowed to offer different services with variable pricing, or whether a principle of network neutrality should be enforced.

Not content to await the regulator’s verdict, Facebook has come out swinging. It has paid for billboards, full-page newspaper ads and television ad campaigns to try to enforce the point that Free Basics is good for India’s poor. In his Times piece, Zuckerberg goes one step further – implying that those opposing Free Basics are actually hurting the poor.

He argued that “for every ten people connected to the internet, roughly one is lifted out of poverty”. Without reference to supporting research, he instead offers an anecdote about a farmer called Ganesh from Maharashtra state. Ganesh apparently used Free Basics to double his crop yields and get a better deal for his crops.

Zuckerberg stressed that “critics of free basic internet services should remember that everything we’re doing is about serving people like Ganesh. This isn’t about Facebook’s commercial interests”.

Zuckerberg’s indignation illustrates either how little he understands about the internet, or that he’s willing to say anything to anyone listening.

This is not a charity

First, despite his claims to the contrary Free Basics clearly runs against the idea of net neutrality by offering access to some sites and not others. While the service is claimed to be open to any app, site or service, in practice the submission guidelines forbid JavaScript, video, large images, and Flash, and effectively rule out secure connections using HTTPS. This means that Free Basics is able to read all data passing through the platform. The same rules don’t apply to Facebook itself, ensuring that it can be the only social network, and (Facebook-owned) WhatsApp the only messaging service, provided.

Yes, Free Basics is free. But how appealing is a taxi company that will only take you to certain destinations, or an electricity provider that will only power certain home electrical devices? There are alternative models: in Bangladesh, Grameenphone gives users free data after they watch an advert. In some African countries, users get free data after buying a handset.

Second, there is no convincing body of peer-reviewed evidence to suggest internet access lifts the world’s poor out of poverty. Should we really base telecommunications policy on an anecdote and a self-serving industry report sponsored by the firm that stands to benefit? India has a literacy rate of 74%, of which a much smaller proportion speak English well enough to read it. Literate English speakers and readers tend not to be India’s poorest citizens, yet it’s English that is the predominant language on the web. This suggests Free Basics isn’t suited for India’s poorest, who’d be better served by more voice and video services.

Third, the claim that Free Basics isn’t in Facebook’s commercial interest is the most outrageous. In much the same way that Nestlé offered free baby formula in the 1970s as development assistance to low-income countries – leaving nursing mothers unable to produce sufficient milk themselves – Free Basics is likely to impede commercial alternatives.

By offering free access Free Basics disrupts the market, allowing Facebook to gain a monopoly that can benefit from the network effects of a growing user base. Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, in India, has aptly noted that expanding audience and consumer bases have long been as important as revenues for internet firms. Against Facebook’s immensely deep pockets and established user-base, homegrown competitors are thwarted before they even begin.

Poverty consists of more than just no internet

India will not always have low levels of internet access, this is not the issue – in fact Indian internet penetration growth rates are relatively high. Instead the company sees Free Basics as a means to establish a bridgehead into the country, establishing a monopoly before other firms move in.

There is decades of research about how best to help farmers like Ganesh: access to good quality education, healthcare, and water all could go a long way. But even if we see internet access as one of the key needs to be met, why would we then offer a restricted version?

In presenting Free Basics as an act of altruism Zuckerberg tries to silence criticism. “Who could possibly be against this?”, he asks:

What reason is there for denying people free access to vital services for communication, education, healthcare, employment, farming and women’s rights?

That is the right question, but Free Basics is the wrong answer. Let’s call a spade a spade and see Free Basics as an important part of the business strategy of one of the world’s largest internet corporations, rather than as a selfless act of charity.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-conversation-january-11-2016-facebook-is-no-charity

#NetNeutrality, Data Protection Laws among topics at ITechLaw Conference

praskrishna — 2016-01-30T09:21:20Z

The who’s-who of the technology law sector convened at the ITechLaw India International Conference held from January 27-29 in Bangalore.

The last three days saw panel discussions being held on a varied set of topics related to technology law. The debates were led by a number of Indian and international legal professionals from law firms, companies and policy houses.

On Day 2, some of the panel discussions included Commercialization of Data, Aggregator Model – Licensing and Regulatory Issues Faced by Shared Economy Models, Digital Underworld, and Legal Challenges faced in New Media and Entertainment, among others.

The speakers present at these sessions included lawyers like Talha Salaria, Founder of Lawyers at Work; JSA Partner Sajai Singh; Trilegal Partner Rahul Matthan; MCM Law Partner Samuel Mani, apart from a host of In-House counsel from Intel, Amazon, IBM, Cognizant et al.

The highlight of Day 3 was a debate on Net Neutrality; Deepali Liberhan from Facebook, Pranesh Prakash from Centre for Internet and Society and Rohan George from Samvad Partners were among the panelists.

For more info, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/netneutrality-data-protection-laws-among-topics-at-itechlaw-conference

The Internet Has a New Standard for Censorship

jyoti — 2016-01-30T09:17:54Z

The introduction of the new 451 HTTP Error Status Code for blocked websites is a big step forward in cataloguing online censorship, especially in a country like India where access to information is routinely restricted.

The article was published in the Wire on January 29, 2016. The original can be read here.

Ray Bradbury’s dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451 opens with the declaration, “It was a pleasure to burn.” The six unassuming words offer a glimpse into the mindset of the novel’s protagonist, ‘the fireman’ Guy Montag, who burns books. Montag occupies a world of totalitarian state control over the media where learning is suppressed and censorship prevails. The title alludes to the ‘temperature at which book paper catches fire and burns,’ an apt reference to the act of violence committed against citizens through the systematic destruction of literature. It is tempting to think about the novel solely as a story of censorship. It certainly is. But it is also a story about the value of intellectual freedom and the importance of information.

Published in 1953, Bradbury’s story predates home computers, the Internet, Twitter and Facebook, and yet it anticipates the evolution of these technologies as tools for censorship. When the state seeks to censor speech, they use the most effective and easiest mechanisms available. In Bradbury’s dystopian world, burning books did the trick; in today’s world, governments achieve this by blocking access to information online. The majority of the world’s Internet users encounter censorship even if the contours of control vary depending on the country’s policies and infrastructure.

Online censorship in India

In India, information access blockades have become commonplace and are increasingly enforced across the country for maintaining political stability, for economic reasons, in defence of national security or preserving social values. Last week, the Maharashtra Anti-terror Squad blocked 94 websites that were allegedly radicalising the youth to join the militant group ISIS. Memorably, in 2015 the NDA government’s ham-fisted attempts at enforcing a ban on online pornography resulted in widespread public outrage. Instead of revoking the ban, the government issued yet another vaguely worded and in many senses astonishing order. As reported by Medianama, the revised order delegates the responsibility of determining whether banned websites should remain unavailable to private intermediaries.

The state’s shifting reasons for blocking access to information is reflective of its tendentious attitude towards speech and expression. Free speech in India is messily contested and normally, the role of the judiciary acts as a check on the executive’s proclivity for banning. For instance, in 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the Maharashtra High Court’s decision to revoke the ban on the book on Shivaji by American author James Laine, which, according to the state government, contained material promoting social enmity. However, in the context of communications technology the traditional role of courts is increasingly being passed on to private intermediaries.

The delegation of authority is evident in the government notifying intermediaries to proactively filter content for ‘child pornography’ in the revised order issued to deal with websites blocked as result of its crackdown on pornography. Such screening and filtering requires intermediaries to make a determination on the legality of content in order to avoid direct liability. As international best practices such as the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability point out, such screening is a slow process and costly and intermediaries are incentivised to simply limit access to information.

Blocking procedures and secrecy

The constitutional validity of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008 which grants power to the executive to block access to information unchecked, and in secrecy was challenged in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Curiously, the Supreme Court upheld S69A reasoning that the provisions were narrowly-drawn with adequate safeguards and noted that any procedural inconsistencies may be challenged through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Unfortunately as past instances of blocking under S69A reveal the provisions are littered with procedural deficiencies, amplified manifold by the authorities responsible for interpreting and implementing the orders.

Problematically, an opaque confidentiality criteria built into the blocking rules mandates secrecy in requests and recommendations for blocking and places written orders outside the purview of public scrutiny. As there are no comprehensive list of blocked websites or of the legal orders, the public has to rely on ISPs leaking orders, or media reports to understand the censorship regime in India. RTI applications requesting further information on the implementation of these safeguards have at best provided incomplete information.

Historically, the courts in India have held that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is as much about the right to receive information as it is to disseminate, and when there is a chilling effect on speech, it also violates the right to receive information. Therefore, if a website is blocked citizens have a constitutional right to know the legal grounds on which access is being restricted. Just like the government announces and clarifies the grounds when banning a book, users have a right to know the grounds for restrictions on their speech online.

Unfortunately, under the present blocking regime in India there is no easy way for a service provider to comply with a blocking order while also notifying users that censorship has taken place. The ‘Blocking Rules’ require notice “person or intermediary” thus implying that notice may be sent to either the originator or the intermediary. Further, the confidentiality clause raises the presumption that nobody beyond the intermediaries ought to know about a block.

Naturally, intermediaries interested in self-preservation and avoiding conflict with the government become complicit in maintaining secrecy in blocking orders. As a result, it is often difficult to determine why content is inaccessible and users often mistake censorship for technical problem in accessing content. Consequently, pursuing legal recourse or trying to hold the government accountable for their censorious activity becomes a challenge. In failing to consider the constitutional merits of the confidentiality clause, the Supreme Court has shied away from addressing the over-broad reach of the executive.

Secrecy in removing or blocking access is a global problem that places limits on the transparency expected from ISPs. Across many jurisdictions intermediaries are legally prohibited from publicising filtering orders as well as information relating to content or service restrictions. For example in United Kingdom, ISPs are prohibited from revealing blocking orders related to terrorism and surveillance. In South Korea, the Korean Communications Standards Commission holds public meetings that are open to the public. However, the sheer volume of censorship (i.e. close to 10,000 URLs a month) makes it unwieldy for public oversight.

As the Manila Principles note, providing users with an explanation and reasons for placing restrictions on their speech and expression increases civic engagement. Transparency standards will empower citizens to demand that companies and governments they interact with are more accountable when it comes to content regulation. It is worth noting, for conduits as opposed to content hosts, it may not always be technically feasible for to provide a notice when content is unavailable due to filtering. A new standard helps improve transparency standards for network level intermediaries and for websites bound by confidentiality requirements. The recently introduced HTTP code for errors is a critical step forward in cataloguing censorship on the Internet.

A standardised code for censorship

On December 21, 2015, the Internet Engineering Standards Group (IESG) which is the organisation responsible for reviewing and updating the internet’s operating standards approved the publication of 451-’An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles’. The code provides intermediaries a standardised way to notify users know when a website is unavailable following a legal order. Publishing the code allows intermediaries to be transparent about their compliance with court and executive orders across jurisdictions and is a huge step forward for capturing online censorship. HTTP code 451 was introduced by software engineer Tim Bray and the code’s name is an homage to Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451.

Bray began developing the code after being inspired by a blog post by Terence Eden calling for a censorship error code. The code’s official status comes after two years of discussions within the technical community and is a result of campaigning from transparency and civil society advocates who have been pushing for clearer labelling of internet censorship. Initially, the code received pushback from within the technical community for reasons enumerated by Mark Nottingham, Chair of the IETF HTTP Working Group in his blog. However, soon sites began using the code on an experimental and unsanctioned basis and faced with increasing demand for and feedback, the code was accepted.

The HTTP code 451 works as a machine-readable flag and has immense potential as a tool for organisations and users who want to quantify and understand censorship on the internet. Cataloguing online censorship is a challenging, time-consuming and expensive task. The HTTP code 451 circumvents confidentiality obligations built into blocking or licensing regimes and reduces the cost of accessing blocking orders.

The code creates a distinction between websites blocked following a court or an executive order, and when information is inaccessible due to technical errors. If implemented widely, Bray’s new code will help prevent confusion around blocked sites. The code addresses the issue of the ISP’s misleading and inaccurate usage of Error 403 ‘Forbidden’ (to indicate that the server can be reached and understood the request, but refuses to take any further action) or 404 ‘Not Found’ (to indicate that the requested resource could not be found but may be available again in the future).

Adoption of the new standard is optional, though at present there are no laws in India that prevent intermediaries doing so. Implementing a standardised machine-readable flag for censorship will go a long way in bolstering the accountability of ISPs that have in the past targeted an entire domain instead of the specified URL. Adoption of the standard by ISPs will also improve the understanding of the burden imposed on intermediaries for censoring and filtering content as presently, there is no clarity on what constitutes compliance. Of course, censorious governments may prohibit the use of the code, for example by issuing an order that specifies not only that a page be blocked, but also precisely which HTTP return code should be used. Though such sanctions should be viewed as evidence of systematic rights violation and totalitarian regimes.

In India where access to software code repositories such as Github and Sourceforge are routinely restricted, the need for such code is obvious. The use of the code will improve confidence in blocking practices, allowing users to understand the grounds on which their right to information is being restricted. Improving transparency around censorship is the only way to build trust between the government and its citizens about the laws and policies applicable to internet content.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-jyoti-panday-january-29-2016-internet-has-a-new-standard-for-censorship

Data Privacy Day 2016

praskrishna — 2016-01-29T15:34:18Z

The Bangalore chapter of Data Privacy Day was organized by Data Security Council of India on January 28, 2016 at Electronic City in Bangalore. Sunil Abraham was a panelist.

Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/data-privacy-day-2016

CIS's Comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal

pranesh — 2016-01-29T15:17:48Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) gave its comments on the failures of the CCWG-Accountability draft proposal as well as the processes that it has followed.

We from the Centre for Internet and Society wishes to express our dismay at the consistent way in which CCWG-Accountability has completely failed to take critical inputs from organizations like ours (and others, some instances of which have been highlighted in Richard Hill’s submission) into account, and has failed to even capture our concerns and misgivings about the process — as expressed in our submission to the CCWG-Accountability’s 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations — in any document prepared by the CCWG. We cannot support the proposal in its current form.

Time for Comments

We believe firstly that the 21 day comment period itself was too short and is going to result effectively in many groups or categories of people from not being able to meaningfully participate in the process, which flies in the face of the values that ICANN claims to uphold. This extremely short period amounts to procedural unsoundness, and restrains educated discussion on the way forward, especially given that the draft has altered quite drastically in the aftermath to ICANN55.

Capture of ICANN and CCWG Process

The participation in the accountability-cross-community mailing list clearly shows that the process is dominated by developed countries (of the top 30 non-staff posters to the list, 26 were from the ‘WEOG’ UN grouping, with 14 being from the USA, with only 1 from Asia Pacific, 2 from Africa, and 1 from Latin America), by males (27 of the 30 non-staff posters), and by industry/commercial interests (17 of the top 30 non-staff posters). If this isn’t “capture”, what is? There is no stress test that overcomes this reality of capture of ICANN by Western industry interests. The global community is only nominally multistakeholder, while actually being grossly under-representative of the developing nations, women and minority genders, and communities that are not business communities or technical communities. For instance, of the 1010 ICANN-accredited registrars, 624 are from the United States, and 7 from the 54 countries of Africa.

Culling statistics from the accountability-cross-community mailing list, we find that of the top 30 posters (excluding ICANN staff):

57% were, as far as one could ascertain from public records, from a single country: the United States of America.
87% were, as far as one could ascertain from public records, participants from countries which are part of the WEOG UN grouping (which includes Western Europe, US, Canada, Israel, Australia, and New Zealand), which only has developed countries. None of those who participated substantively were from the EEC (Eastern European) group and only 1 was from Asia-Pacific and only 1 was from GRULAC (Latin American and Caribbean Group).
90% were male and 3 were female, as far as one could ascertain from public records.
57% were identifiable as primarily being from industry or the technical community, as far as one could ascertain from public records, with only 2 (7%) being readily identifiable as representing governments.

This lack of global multistakeholder representation greatly damages the credibility of the entire process, since it gains its legitimacy by claiming to represent the global multistakeholder Internet community.

Bogey of Governmental Capture

With respect to Stress Test 18, dealing with the GAC, the report proposes that the ICANN Bylaws, specifically Article XI, Section 2, be amended to create a provision where if two-thirds of the Board so votes, they can reject a full GAC consensus advice. This amendment is not connected to the fear of government capture or the fear that ICANN will become a government-led body; given that the advice given by the GAC is non-binding that is not a possibility. Given the state of affairs described in the submission made above, it is clear that for much of the world, their governments are the only way in which they can effectively engage within the ICANN ecosystem. Therefore, nullifying the effectiveness of GAC advice is harmful to the interests of fostering a multistakeholder ecosystem, and contributes to the strengthening of the kind of industry capture described above.

Jurisdiction

All discussions on the Sole Designator Model seem predicated on the unflinching certainty of ICANN’s jurisdiction continuing to remain in California, as the legal basis of that model is drawn from Californian corporate law. To quote the draft report itself, in Annexe 12, it is stated that:

"Jurisdiction directly influences the way ICANN’s accountability processes are structured and operationalized. The fact that ICANN today operates under the legislation of the U.S. state of California grants the corporation certain rights and implies the existence of certain accountability mechanisms. It also imposes some limits with respect to the accountability mechanisms it can adopt. The topic of jurisdiction is, as a consequence, very relevant for the CCWG-Accountability. ICANN is a public benefit corporation incorporated in California and subject to California state laws, applicable U.S. federal laws and both state and federal court jurisdiction."

Jurisdiction has been placed within the mandate of WS2, to be dealt with post the transition. However, there is no analysis in the 3rd Draft on how the Sole Designator Model would continue to be upheld if future Work Stream 2 discussions led to a consensus that there needed to be a shift in the jurisdiction of ICANN. In the event that ICANN shifts to, say, Delaware or Geneva, would there be a basis to the Sole Designator Model in the law? Therefore this is an issue that needs to be addressed before this model is adopted, else there is a risk of either this model being rendered infructuous in the future, or this model foreclosing open debate and discussion in Work Stream 2.

Right of Inspection

We strongly support the incorporation of the rights of Inspection under this model as per Section 6333 of the California Corporations Code as a fundamental bylaw. As there is a severe gap between the claims that ICANN raises about its own transparency and the actual amount of transparency that it upholds, we opine that the right of inspection needs to be provided to each member of the ICANN community.

Timeline for WS2 Reforms

We support the CCWG’s commitment to the review of the DIDP Process, which they have committed to enhancing in WS2. Our research on this matter indicates that ICANN has in practice been able to deflect most requests for information. It regularly utilised its internal processes and discussions with stakeholders clauses, as well as clauses on protecting financial interests of third parties (over 50% of the total non-disclosure clauses ever invoked - see chart below) to do away with having to provide information on pertinent matters such as its compliance audits and reports of abuse to registrars. We believe that even if ICANN is a private entity legally, and not at the same level as a state, it nonetheless plays the role of regulating an enormous public good, namely the Internet. Therefore, there is a great onus on ICANN to be far more open about the information that they provide. Finally, it is extremely disturbing that they have extended full disclosure to only 12% of the requests that they receive. An astonishing 88% of the requests have been denied, partly or otherwise. See "Peering behind the veil of ICANN's DIDP (II)".

In the present format, there has been little analysis on the timeline of WS2; the report itself merely states that:

"The CCWG-Accountability expects to begin refining the scope of Work Stream 2 during the upcoming ICANN 55 Meeting in March 2016. It is intended that Work Stream 2 will be completed by the end of 2016."

Without further clarity and specification of the WS2 timeline, meaningful reform cannot be initiated. Therefore we urge the CCWG to come up with a clear timeline for transparency processes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ciss-comments-on-the-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal

Summary of the Public Consultation by Vigyan Foundation, Oxfam India and G.B. Pant Institute, Allahabad

vipul — 2016-01-28T15:22:56Z

On December 22nd and 23rd a public consultation was organized by the Vigyan Foundation, Oxfam India and G.B. Pant Institute, Allahabad at the GB Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad to discuss the issues related to making Allahabad into a Smart City under the Smart On December 22nd and 23rd a public consultation was organized by the Vigyan Foundation, Oxfam India and G.B. Pant Institute, Allahabad at the GB Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad to discuss the issues related to making Allahabad into a Smart City under the Smart City scheme of the Central Government. An agenda for the same is attached herewith. City scheme of the Central Government.

The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore (CIS) is researching the 100 Smart City Scheme from the perspective of Big Data and is seeking to understand the role of Big Data in smart cities in India as well as the impact of the generation and use of the same. CIS is also examining whether the current legal framework is adequate to deal with these new technologies. It was in this background that CIS attended a part of the workshop.

At the outset the organizers had noted that there will be no discussion on technology and its adoption in this particular workshop.. The format involved a speaker providing his/her viewpoint on the topic concerned and the discussion revolved mainly around problems relating to traffic, parking, roads, drainage, etc. and there was no discussion of technology or how to utilise it to solve these problems. From the discussions CIS has had with certain people who are quite involved with these public consultations, the impression that we have is that the solutions to these problems were not very complicated and required only some intent and execution, and if that was achieved it would go a long way in improving the infrastructure of the city. This perspective raises the question of whether or not India needs 'Smart Cities' to improve the life of residents or if basic urban solutions are adequate and are in fact needed to lay the foundation for any potential smart city that might be established in the future.

It is quite interesting to see the difference in the levels at which the debate on smart cities is happening, in that when the central government talks about smart cities they try to highlight technology and other aspects such as smart meters, smart grids, etc. while the discussion on the ground in the actual cities is currently at a much more basic stage. For example the government website for the smart city project, while describing a smart city, mentions a number of “smart solutions” such as “electronic service delivery”, “smart meters” for water, “smart meters” for electricity, “smart parking”, Intelligent Traffic Management”, “Tele-medicine”, etc. Even in all the major public service announcements on the smart city project, the government effort seems to be to focus on these “smart solutions”, projecting technology as the answer to urban problems. However those in the cities themselves appear to be more concerned with adequate parking, adequate water supply, proper roads, waste disposal, etc. This difference in approach is only representative of the yawning gap between the mindspace of those who conceive these schemes and market them on the one hand and those who are tasked with implementing the schemes on the other hand as well as the realities of what cities in India need to address problems related to infrastructure and functioning. However the silver lining in this scenario, atleast on a personal level, is that the people on the ground, are not blindly turning to technology to solve their problems but actually trying to look for the best solutions regardless of whether it is a technology based solution or not.

Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-of-the-public-consultation-by-vigyan-foundation-oxfam-india-and-g-b-pant-institute-allahabad

We are anonymous, we are legion

Net neutrality advocates hail Trai verdict

UNICEF & Nasscom Foundation Workshop on Child Online Protection

Database on Big Data and Smart Cities International Standards

[45] SPRING Singapore Supported Close to 600 Companies in Standards Adoption, and Service Excellence Projects , 12th August 2015, http://www.spring.gov.sg/NewsEvents/PR/Pages/Internet-of-Things-(IoT)-Standards-Outline-to-Support-Smart-Nation-Initiative-Unveiled-20150812.aspx

India Sets Strict New Net Neutrality Rules

Facebook's Fall from Grace: Arab Spring to Indian Winter

India bans Facebook’s ‘free’ Internet for the poor

A Megacorp’s Basic Instinct

India, Egypt say no thanks to free Internet from Facebook

Facebook’s Fight to Be Free

Facebook is no charity, and the ‘free’ in Free Basics comes at a price

This is not a charity

Poverty consists of more than just no internet

#NetNeutrality, Data Protection Laws among topics at ITechLaw Conference

The Internet Has a New Standard for Censorship

Online censorship in India

Blocking procedures and secrecy

A standardised code for censorship

Data Privacy Day 2016

Agenda

CIS's Comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal

Time for Comments

Capture of ICANN and CCWG Process

Bogey of Governmental Capture

Jurisdiction

Right of Inspection

Timeline for WS2 Reforms

Summary of the Public Consultation by Vigyan Foundation, Oxfam India and G.B. Pant Institute, Allahabad

Agenda

^{^[45]} SPRING Singapore Supported Close to 600 Companies in Standards Adoption, and Service Excellence Projects , 12th August 2015, http://www.spring.gov.sg/NewsEvents/PR/Pages/Internet-of-Things-(IoT)-Standards-Outline-to-Support-Smart-Nation-Initiative-Unveiled-20150812.aspx