We are anonymous, we are legion

Interpreting the Outer Space Treaty's Non-Appropriation Principle: Customary International Law from 1967 to Today

Admin — 2019-07-06T03:17:22Z

Arindrajit Basu's research was quoted in the journal article authored by Abigail D. Pershing and published by Yale Journal of International Law.

Origin wants to take tourists to space by April 2019. The European Space Agency points to the possibilities of mining Helium-3 on the moon to providecleaner energy here on Earth. Space tourism, exploration, and exploitation are very real possibilities in the near future—at least technologically. Legally,however, the way forward is less clear.

Under the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (commonly known as the Outer Space Treaty), no State has the right to claim as sovereign territory the moon or any other celestial body. Some critics see the Outer Space Treaty as merely an outdated relic from the Cold War era, but there are good reasons for maintaining the fundamental principles under girding the law in its current form. If the Treaty were repealed or interpreted to allow a free-for-all, first-come, first-served method of allocating space property rights (as some have suggested either should, or will, happen), this would likely produce an extremely chaotic and unequal allocation of resources. Developing nations that currently lack space capabilities would be at a significant disadvantage relative to States possessing such capabilities, and the ensuing State actions would likely result in an unequal territorial grab leaving few, if any, resources for those nations technologically incapable of space exploration.

Click to read the complete article.

Citations:

{Footnotes 123, 126 and 132} Arindrajit Basu, Regulatory Mechanism for the Exploitation of Natural Resources in Outer Space and Celestial Bodies, in SPACE LAW:THE EMERGING TRENDS (Sandeepa Bhat eds, 2017)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/abigail-d-pershing-yale-journal-of-international-law-interpreting-the-outer-space-treaty-s-non-appropriation-principle

Internet-driven Developments — Structural Changes and Tipping Points

elonnai — 2012-12-28T15:34:51Z

A symposium on Internet Driven Developments: Structural Changes and Tipping Points was held in Cambridge, Massachusetts at Harvard University from December 6 to 8, 2012. The symposium was sponsored by the Ford Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation and was hosted by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. In this blog post, I summarize the discussions that took place over the two days and add my own personal reflections on the issues.

The symposium served as an inaugural event for the Global Network of Interdisciplinary Centers, which currently includes as its members:

The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University
The Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet & Society
The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
The Center for Technology & Society at the Fundacao Getulio Vargas Law School, Keio University
The MIT Media Lab and its Center for Civic Media
The NEXA Center for Internet & Society at Politicnico di Torino.

Individuals and researchers from the Centers focused on understanding the effects of internet and society. The participants were brought together to explore the past, present, and future tipping points of the internet, to identify knowledge gaps, and to find areas of collaboration and future action between institutes and individuals. Specifically, the symposium set out to examine fundamental questions about the internet, identify structural changes that are occurring because of the internet, and the forces that are catalyzing these changes. Questions asked and discussed included:

What forces are changing production and service models?
What forces are influencing entrepreneurship and innovation? and
What forces are changing political participation?

Production and Service Models

Discussion

When participants discussed the changes that are happening to production and service models, concepts such as big data, algorithms, peer based models of production, and intermediaries were identified as actors and tools that are driving change in production and service models in the context of the internet. For example, big data and algorithms are being used to alter the nature, scope, and reach of business by allowing for the personalization and customization of services. To this end, many organizations have incorporated customer participation into business models, and provide platforms for feedback and input. The personalization of services has placed greater emphasis on the voice of the customer, allowing customers to guide and influence business by voicing preferences, satisfaction levels, etc. In this way, consumers can determine what type of service they want, and can also make political statements through their choices and feedback. In the process, however, such platforms generate and depend on large amounts of data and thus raise concerns about privacy.

Knowledge gaps that were identified during the conversation included how to predict what would make a participatory platform and peer based model successful, and how these platforms can be effectively researched. When looking at big data, a knowledge gap that was identified included how to ensure that data are collected ethically and accurately, as well as the related question: once large data sets are collected, how can the data be analyzed and used in a meaningful way?

There was also discussion about the increasingly critical and powerful role that intermediaries serve within the scope of the internet as they act as the platform provider and regulator for internet content. Intermediaries both allow for content to be posted on the internet, and determine what information is accessed through the filtering of web searches. Increasingly, governments are seeking to regulate intermediaries and create strict rules of compliance with governmental mandates. At the same time governments are placing the responsibility and liability of regulating what content is posted on internet on intermediaries, essentially placing them in the role of an adjudicator. This is one example of how the relationship between the private sector, the government, and the individual is changing, because it is only recently that private intermediaries have been held responsible first to governments, and only secondarily to customers.

Knowledge gaps identified in the discussion on intermediaries included understanding and researching how intermediaries decide to filter content found through searches. On what basis is each filter done? Are there actors influencing this process? And what are the economics behind the process?

Personal Thoughts

When reflecting on how the internet is changing and influencing the production of goods and services, I personally would add to the points discussed in the meeting the fact that the internet has also impacted the job economy. Reports show that jobs in the extraction and manufacturing sector are decreasing, as the internet has created a mandatory new tech oriented skill set that often outweighs the need for other skill sets. This change is far reaching as the job economy influences what skills students choose to learn, why and for what purposes individuals migrate across borders for employment, and in what industries governments invest money towards domestic development. In addition to changing the nature of skills in demand, the nature of the services themselves is changing. Though services are becoming more personalized and tailored to the individual, this personalization is automated, and replacing the ‘human touch’ that was once prized in business. Whether customers care if the service they are given is generated by an algorithm or delivered by an individual may depend on a person’s preference, but the European Union has seen this shift as being significant enough to address automated decision making in Article 15 of the EU directive, which provides individuals the right to not be subject to a decision which legally impacts him/her which is based only on automated processing of data. This directive encompasses decisions such as evaluation of a person’s performance at work, creditworthiness, reliability, conduct, etc.

The internet has also increased the cost of small mistakes made by businesses, as any mistake will now potentially impact millions of customers. The impact of any mistake makes risk management much more important and difficult, as businesses must seek to anticipate and mitigate any and all mistakes. The internet has also created a new level of dependency on the network, as businesses shift all of their services and functions over to the internet. Thus, if the network goes down, businesses will lose revenue and customers. This level of dependency on the network that exists today is different from past reliance’s on technology — in the sense that in the past there was not one single type of technology that would be essential for many businesses to run. The closest analogue was transportation: if trucks, trains, or ships were unavailable, multiple industries would be impacted. The difference is that those who relied on rail could shift temporarily to ships or trucks. Those relying on the network have no alternatives. Furthermore, past technologies were constantly evolving in the resources they depended on — from coal to gas, etc, but for the internet, it seems that the resource is not evolving, so much as expanding as increased bandwidth and connectivity are the solution to allowing technological evolution and innovation through the internet.

As discussed above, intermediaries are becoming key and powerful players, but they also seem to be increasingly placed between a rock and a hard place, as governments around the world are asking national and multinational intermediaries to filter content that violates national laws in one context, but not another context. Furthermore, intermediaries are increasingly being asked to comply with law enforcement requests for access to data that is often not within the jurisdiction of the requesting country. The difficult position intermediaries are placed in demonstrates how the architecture of the internet is borderless but the regulation and use of the internet is still tied to borders and jurisdiction.

Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Discussion

When discussing entrepreneurship and innovation it was pointed out by participants that grey markets and market failures are important indicators for possibilities of new business models and forms of innovation. Because of that, it is important to study what has failed and why when identifying new possibilities and trends. The importance of policies and laws that allow for innovation and entrepreneurship was also highlighted.

Personal Thoughts

When thinking about entrepreneurship and innovation on the internet and forces driving them, it seems clear that tethering, conglomerating, and organizing information from multiple sources is one direction that innovation is headed. Services are coming out that have the ability to search the internet based on individual preferences and provide more accurate data quickly. This removes the need for individuals to search the internet at length to find the information or products they want. Along the same lines, it seems that there is a greater trend towards personalization. Services are finding new and innovative ways to bring individuals customized products. Another trend is the digitization of all services — from moving libraries online, to bookstores online, to grocery stores online. Lastly, there is a constant demand for new applications to be developed. These can range from applications enabling communication through social networking, to applications that act as personal financial consultants, to applications that act as personal trainers. The ability for concepts, trends, etc to go viral on the internet has also added another dimension to entrepreneurship and innovation as any individual can potentially become successful by something going viral. The ability for something to go viral on the internet does not just impact entrepreneurship and innovation, but also impacts political participation and production and service models.

Political Participation

Discussions also centered on how political participation is changing as the internet is being used as a new platform for participation. For example, it is now possible for individuals to leverage their voice and message to local and global communities. Furthermore, this message can be communicated on a seemingly personal scale. Individuals from one community are able to connect to communities from another location — both local and abroad, and to work together to catalyze change. Messages and communications can be spread easily to millions of people and can go viral. This ability has changed and created new public spheres, where anyone can contribute to a dialogue from anywhere. Empowerment is shifting as well, because the internet allows for new power structures to be created by any actor who knows how to leverage the network. These factors allow for more voices to be heard and for greater citizen participation. The role of the youth in political movements was also emphasized in the discussions. On the other hand governments have responded by more heavily regulating speech and content on the internet when dissenting voices and campaigns are seen as a threat. It was also brought out that though emerging forms of online political participation have been heralded by many for achievements such as facilitating democracy, transparency, and bringing a voice to the silenced — many have warned that analysis of these political forms of participation overlook individual contributions and time. Other critiques that were discussed included the fact that digital revolutions also exclude individuals who do not have access to the internet or to platforms/applications and overlook actions and movements that take place offline.

Knowledge gaps that were identified included understanding the basics of the change that is happening in political participation through the internet. For example, it is unclear who the actors are that determine the conditions and scope for these changes, and like participatory forms of business, what enables and mobilizes change. Furthermore, it is unclear who specifically benefits from these changes and how, and who participates in the changes — and in what capacity. Additionally, much of the change has been quantified in the dialogue of the ‘global’ — global voices, global movements — but that dialogue ignores the local.

Personal Thoughts

In addition to the discussions on political participation, I believe the internet has created the possibility for ‘social governance’. To address situations in which there is no particular law against an action, but individuals come together and speak out against actions that they see on the internet that they believe should be stopped or changed. Depending on the extent individuals choose to enforce these decisions, this can be potentially dangerous as individuals are essentially rewriting laws and social norms without subjecting them to the crucible of consensus decision-making or review. In addition, forms of political participation are not changing just in terms of how the individual engages politically with states and governments, but also in the ways that politicians are engaging with citizens. For example, politicians are using Facebook and Twitter as means to communicate and gather feedback from supporters. Politicians are also using technology to reach more individuals with their messages — from experimenting with 3D holograms, to web casting, to using technology like CCTV cameras to prove transparency. The impact of this could be interesting, as technology is becoming a mediating tool that works in both directions between citizens and governments. Is this changing the traditional understandings of the State and the relationship between the State and the citizen?

Conclusion and ways forward

The discussions also pulled out dichotomies that apply to the internet and illustrate tensions arising from different forces. These dichotomies can be shaped by individuals and actors attempting to regulate the internet, as for example with new models of regulation vs. old models of regulation, private vs. public, local vs. global, owned vs. unowned, and zoned vs. unzoned. These dichotomies can be shaped by how the internet is used. For example, fair vs. unfair, just vs. unjust, represented vs. silenced, and uniform vs. diverse.

Common questions being asked and areas for potential research that came out of these discussions included information communication and media, how to address different and at times contradictory policies and levels of development in different countries, and what is the impact of big data on different sectors and industries like e-health and journalism? What is the importance of ICT in creating economic progress? How is the Internet changing the nature of democracy?

When discussing ways forward and areas for future collaboration it was brought out that exploring ways to leverage open data, ways to effectively use and build off of perspectives and experiences from other contexts and cultures, and ways to share resources across borders including funding, human presence, and expertise were important questions to answer. Common challenges that were identified by participants ranged from cyber security and the rise of state and non-state actors in cyber warfare, finding adequate funding to support research, sustaining international collaborations, ensuring that research is meaningful and can translate into useful resources for policy and law makers, and ensuring that projects are designed with a long-term objective and vision in mind.

The discussions, presentations, and contributions by participants during the two day symposium were interesting and important as they demonstrated just how multi-faced the internet is, and how it is never one dimensional. How the internet is researched, how it is used, and how it is regulated will be constantly changing. Whether this change is a step forward, or a re-invention of what has already been done, is up to all who use the internet including the individual, the corporation, the researcher, the policy maker, and the government.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/internet-driven-developments

Internet, Transparency and Politics

sachia — 2011-04-05T04:36:59Z

Talk by Barun Mitra

The 2009 general elections in India have been preceded by various initiatives that seek to provide information to the voters about candidates contesting the elections. The aim of providing this information is to help voters to make 'informed choices' when casting their votes. This talk is being organized in the context of the research that CIS-RAW fellow Zainab Bawa is carrying out on "Internet, Transparency and Politics". Why has the Internet become an important space for publishing information that is streamlined for facilitating interaction between citizens and the state? What is the impact of making such information available to citizens? How does it transform their relationship with political actors and government agencies? Simultaneously, how are elected representatives and political parties responding to these 'transparency' initiatives?

Speaker

Barun Mitra is the Director of Liberty Institute, a think-tank based in Delhi. He has conceptualized EmpoweringIndia.org to enable voters to cast their votes thoughtfully during the elections and to use the information on the site to hold their elected representatives accountable after they have been voted in. Barun Mitra also writes on issues of environment, health, trade and democracy in publications such as The Mint, Economic Times and Business Standard.

Time and Date

Wednesday, 15 April 2009; 5.00-6.30 pm

Venue

Centre for Internet and Society, No. D2, 3rd Floor, Sheriff Chambers, 14, Cunningham Road, Bangalore - 560052

Map

For a map, please click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/internet-transparency-and-politics

Internet, szabadon

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T09:25:49Z

A polgárjogi aktivisták konfrontálódtak és panaszkodtak, a Google és a Facebook hárított és panaszkodott az Internet at Liberty konferencián, amelyet kedden és szerdán rendezett a Google és a CEU Budapesten.

– Célunk a szabad, nyílt és biztonságos internet. A Google igyekszik maximalizálni az információhoz való szabad hozzáférést, bár néha hibázunk. Útelágazáshoz érkeztünk, valószínű, hogy az internet korlátozottabb lesz, és a felhasználókat megfosztják hatalmuktól. 2002-ben még csak négy, 2010-ben már 40 ország – köztük Irán, Törökország, Oroszország és Kína – kormánya blokkol tartalmat a neten. Azon vannak, hogy kiépítésék saját, államilag támogatott és feltehetően cenzúrázott keresőiket. A Google célja, hogy a net szabad maradjon – röviden ezt mondta David Google Drummond, a Google jogi igazgatója, egyben a Google egyik alelnöke a Google és a CEU és a Google által szervezett nemzetközi konferencián, az Internet at Liberty 2010-en kedden Budapesten.

Hát ezért kár volt ilyen messzire jönni.

De még mielőtt a hallgatóság egy emberként a laptopjába bújt volna, hogy a Farmville-ben bekkelje ki az elkövetkező két napot, szerencsére kiderült, hogy a jelenlévők között akad rengeteg polgárjogi aktivista, netes szabadságharcos és született privacymániás a világ minden részéről. Ők gondoskodtak róla, hogy személyes, országos, sőt globális volumenű panaszaikkal árnyalják a süppedő padlószőnyegből és az erdei gigantposzterből áradó, felelősségteljes corporate derűt.

„Az internet önmagában nem változtat meg semmit. Ki kell menni az utcára, és a vérünkkel kell fizetnünk!”; „Legalább mondják meg, mi a szart csinálnak!”; „Tudja maga, milyen rendőrségünk van nekünk Pakisztánban?” - ilyen és ehhez hasonló hozzászólások árnyékolták be a felelősségteljes corporate derűt. Amely a sötét fellegek ellenére egészen kedd estig kitartott; de ne szaladjunk ennyire előre.

A jó, a csúf és az illegális

Az internetes szólásszabadság története a jó, a csúf és az illegális története, mondta a konferencia első beszélgetésén Rob Faris, a Harvard Berkman internetes központjának kutatási igazgatója és a nyílt internetért ügyködő OpenNet Initiative munkatársa. A legfontosabb feladat Faris szerint eldönteni azt, hol húzódik a határ a csúf, de még törvényes, és az illegális tartalom között. Erre a legjobb példa a netes pornó helyzete az Egyesült Államokban: az USA Legfelsőbb Bírósága kétszer is megsemmisítette a betiltást célzó törvényeket, és most ott tart az ügy, hogy csak az iskolákban és a könyvtárakban elérhetetlen a pornó, egyébként alkotmányos védelmet élvez. Nem úgy, mint Indiában, de ne szaladjunk ennyire előre.

Faris szerint ugyanakkor világszerte mostanában jelennek meg az internetszabályozás második generációs módszerei, amelyek között ott vannak a szerzői jogi alapon benyújtott eltávolítási kérelmek, sőt az aktivisták és a médiaszájtok ellen intézett kibertámadások is. Az egyes országok kormányai finomítottak szűrési módszereiken, Bahreinben és Jemenben például a választások idején csak speciális szájtokat és információt blokkoltak, Argentína eljutott odáig, hogy néhány éve sikerült a Yahooból elérhetetlenné tennie a Diego Maradonára vonatkozó találatokat. Faris konklúziója: nemzetközi megoldásokra van szükség. De ne szaladjunk ennyire előre.

Panaszfal extra

Nem kellett sok idő hozzá, hogy a konferencia egyetlen hatalmas panaszfallá változzon, vicces és kevésbé vicces panaszrohamokkal. A kirgiz meghívott, Tattu Mambetalieva elmondta, hogy Kirgizisztánban kevesen neteznek, mert drága. Sunil Abraham, az indiai meghívott elmondta, hogy náluk blokkolják a pornót, különös tekintettel a Savita Bhabhi kalandjait ábrázoló képregénysorozatra [Warning: Not safe for work - adult content]. Sazad Ahmad, a pakisztáni meghívott elmondta, hogy a náluk a kormány blaszfémiára hivatkozva blokkol, de mindig kiderül, hogy politikai okok állnak a háttérben.

Egy szíriai aktivista arra panaszkodott, hogy a tunéziai kormány 12 millió dollárért vett a netes forgalom ellenőrzésére szolgáló szervert, és hogy a fejlődő országokban a tartalomszűrésre használt szoftvert nyugatról szerzik be. Egy jemeni aktivista arra panaszkodott, hogy a yemenportal.net-et blokkolja a kormányzat, és hogy a világ semmit nem tud az országban zajló tömegtüntetésekről, nem beszélve a helyi LGBT-közösségéről és a rockegyüttesekről. Tunéziában az a probléma, hogy ha tömegmegmozdulás szerveződik a neten, húszezren feliratkoznak ugyan rá, de csak tízen mennek el. Törökország több száz szájtot blokkol, köztük a YouTube-ot és a Google számos szolgáltatását (Docs, Books, Translate). Azerbajdzsánban két bloggert bebörtönöztek írásaik miatt, és azért nem engedik ki őket, mert nem számítanak újságírónak. A Facebook törli a szoptató anyákról készült képeket, és a Wikipédián az emberi anatómiát taglaló szócikkeket illusztráló fotókat egyre gyakrabban váltják fel rajzok.

Csodák csodájára a panaszok úgy pattantak le a jelen lévő politikusokról, diplomatákról és üzletemberekről, mint eltévedt golflabda a moha lepte kőkerítésről: a Facebook, a Google és a francia külügyminisztérium jelen lévő képviselői, részben tehát a közvetlen címzettek végig ügyesen hárítottak. Folyamatosan hangoztatták, milyen irtózatosan nehéz dolguk van ebben az egyre globálisabb világban, ahol diktatúrák és demokráciák között kell zsonglőrködniük, mindenkinek a kedvében járniuk, és ők mindent megtesznek ugyan, de hát Kína, ugye. Meg Irán. Főleg Irán. Így aztán nem hozott érdemi vitát a Facebook és a Google közös színpadi szereplése sem, pedig a két cég magas szinten képviseltette magát: a Google-től Drummond, a Facebooktól egyenesen Lord Richard Allan, Hallam bárója, volt brit parlamenti képviselő jött el Budapestre, akivel interjút is készítettünk [2].

Még a kritikus sem kritizál

„Nem áll szándékomban a privacy-vel kapcsolatos kritikát megfogalmazni”, mondta nekik kérdésnek látszó expozéjában Marc Rotenberg, az Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) igazgatója, akitől joggal lehetett várni, hogy rendesen megszorongatja a Google és a Facebook tökét. Rotenberg a két cég képviselőihez intézett beszédében annyit mondott, hogy nem feltétlenül hasznos a szólásszabadságot és a magánszférát két ütköző, egymással kiegyensúlyozandó területként felfogni. Szerinte a kettő inkább kiegészíti egymást: az anonim véleménynyilvánítás joga például olyan terület, ahol kéz a kézben jár a magánszférához fűződő jog és a szólásszabadság.

Rotenberg szerint még a privacy semmibe vételével folyamatosan vádolt Facebook sem az ördögtől való, olyannyira, hogy ő maga is fent van rajta. „A Facebook olyan, mint a telefon vagy az email. Használjuk csak politikai aktivizmusra, de legyünk tisztában a hiányosságaival” - mondta Rotenberg, aki szerint a kritikánál többet használ a dialógus.

Mindeközben Lord Allan of Hallam szorgalmasan jegyzetelt az általa csak fPadként emlegetett, Facebook-kék színű füzetbe, Drummond a Google-től pedig atyai stílusban oktatta: „Sok-sok hibát fognak még elkövetni – mondta a Google főjogásza a brit bárónak. – De idővel majd beletanulnak”.

A példátlan kultúrdialógus-kényszerben szinte elsikkadt az egyik legeredetibb résztvevő, Jevgenyij Morozov mondanivalója, pedig Morozov a techvilág jelenleg talán legnépszerűtlenebb álláspontját képviseli: azt hangoztatja, hogy az internet hozzásegíti a diktatúrákat ahhoz, hogy megerősítsék saját hatalmukat A belorusz származású blogger, újságíró és kutató általában szkeptikusan gondolkodik az internet demokratizáló hatásáról. Morozov, aki a tavalyi TED konferencián egész előadást [3] tartott arról, hogyan élnek vissza a diktatúrák a modern technológiai eszközök és a web általában jótékonynak tartott adományaival, azt mondja, hogy az internet egyszerre autonóm erő, és egyszerre a hatalom eszköze. A kutató szerint túlságos leegyszerűsítés a kérdést az aktivisták és a kormányok közötti harcra lebontani. Először meg kell érteni a kultúra, a vallás, a nacionalizmus közötti kapcsolatokat, és csak utána kitalálni, hogyan vonatkoztatható mindez az internetre. A tanulság: tovább kell tanulmányozni a kérdést. Morozov nézeteit nem mindenki osztotta, egy hozzászóló szerint például Iránban kifejezetten jót tesz, hogy a bloggerek fényképeznek, írnak és az anyagot feltöltik a netre, legalább el tudják mondani, hogy a világ figyeli őket. És ez már önmagában reményt kelt.

Read the original in index

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/internet-szabadon

Internet, social media access should not be blocked: Ban

praskrishna — 2011-12-12T04:16:25Z

Amidst a raging controversy over the federal government’s proposal to monitor content in cyber space, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday said access to the Internet and various social media must not be blocked as a way to prevent criticism and public debate.

In his speech on the eve of the Human Rights Day which was released at the United Nations Information Centre, Ban said: “Today, within their existing obligation to respect the rights of freedom of assemble and expression, governments must not block access to the Internet and various forms of social media as a way to prevent criticism and public debate.”

His comments came a few days after Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal said the government will take steps to stop offensive and defamatory content on Internet sites.

Ban said: “Many of the people seeking their legitimate aspirations were linked through social media.”

Sibal’s comments provoked anger and derision among Internet users. Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said it would be “impractical on the level of scale and on the level of the objective test. What’s offensive for someone might be completely banal to somebody else,” he said. Any ham-fisted government crackdown would “have a high impact on our credibility as a democracy” and risk alienating India’s growing online community, Abraham said.

The story was published in the Oman Tribune on December 10, 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this article. Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-social-media-access-should-not-be-blocked-ban

Internet, Mobile & Digital Economy Conference (IMDEC) 2013

praskrishna — 2013-10-25T06:18:25Z

FICCI, in association with the Ministry of Communications & IT, Government of India is organizing Internet, Mobile & Digital Economy Conference (IMDEC) 2013 on 17th October 2013 at Federation House, FICCI, New Delhi. The theme for this year’s conference is “Internet to Equinet: Empowering a Billion Online”. Sunil Abraham is a speaker in the session on "The Internet We Want: A Multistakeholder Approach".

This was published by FICCI on their website on October 16, 2013. Download the agenda here.

Shri Kapil Sibal, Hon’ble Minister for Communications & Information Technology has kindly consented to inaugurate the conference and will deliver the keynote address during the inaugural session. Shri Nehchal Sandhu, Deputy National Security Advisor; Shri M F Farooqui, Secretary, DoT; and Mr. Fadi Chehadé, CEO, ICANN have also agreed to address the participants during the inaugural session of the conference.

The conference will deliberate on the empowerment of Indian citizens and growth of the digital economy, using internet and mobile technologies. The first conference will specifically debate on thematic and business issues as below:

Inaugural Session: Internet to Equinet: Empowering a Billion Online

Session I: The Internet We Want: A Multistakeholder View

Session II:M2M: The Internet of 50 Billion Devices

Session III: Mobile Internet is the Future: What Stands in the Way?

The conference which will include CEOs and senior government, industry and academia participants, will explore the challenges in connecting the unconnected and making them part of the global information society on one hand, while discussing the implementation and impact of new emerging technologies such as M2M. It will provide an opportunity to hear the views of various stakeholders and thought leaders in the internet, mobile and digital economy space. IMDEC 2013 is open to business leaders, economists, researchers, analysts and decision-makers from government entities, industry, academia, and international organizations.

Bhairav Acharya, Elonnai Hickok and Purba Sarkar also participated in the event.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ficci-october-17-2013-internet-mobile-digital-economy-conference-2013

Internet's Core Resources are a Global Public Good - They Cannot Remain Subject to One Country's Jurisdiction

vidushi — 2016-11-14T06:39:52Z

This statement was issued by 8 India civil society organizations, supported by 2 key global networks, involved with internet governance issues, to the meeting of ICANN in Hyderabad, India from 3 to 9 November 2016. The Centre for Internet & Society was one of the 8 organizations that drafted this statement.

Recently, the US gave up its role of signing entries to the Internet's root zone file, which represents the addressing system for the global Internet. This is about the Internet addresses that end with .com, .net, and so on, and the numbers associated with each of them that help us navigate the Internet. We thank and congratulate the US government for taking this important step in the right direction. However, the organisation that manages this system, ICANN,[1] a US non-profit, continues to be under US jurisdiction, and hence subject to its courts, legislature and executive agencies. Keeping such an important global public infrastructure under US jurisdiction is expected to become a very problematic means of extending US laws and policies across the world.

We the undersigned therefore appeal that urgent steps be taken to transit ICANN from its current US jurisdiction. Only then can ICANN become a truly global organisation.[2] We would like to make it clear that our objection is not directed particularly against the US; we are simply against an important global public infrastructure being subject to a single country's jurisdiction.

Domain name system as a key lever of global control
A few new top level domains like .xxx and .africa are already under litigation in the US, whereby there is every chance that its law could interfere with ICANN's (global) policy decisions. Businesses in different parts of the world seeking top level domain names like .Amazon, and, hypothetically, .Ghaniancompany, will have to be mindful of de facto extension of US jurisdiction over them. US agencies can nullify the allocation of such top level domain names, causing damage to a business similar to that of losing a trade name, plus losing all the 'connections', including email based ones, linked to that domain name. For instance, consider the risks that an Indian generic drugs company, say with a top level domain, .genericdrugs, will remain exposed to.

Sector specific top level domain names like .insurance, health, .transport, and so on, are emerging, with clear rules for inclusion-exclusion. These can become de facto global regulatory rules for that sector. .Pharmacy has been allocated to a US pharmaceutical group which decides who gets domain names under it. Public advocacy groups have protested [3] that these rules will be employed to impose drugs-related US intellectual property standards globally. Similar problematic possibilities can be imagined in other sectors; ICANN could set “safety standards”, as per US law, for obtaining .car.

Country domain names like .br and .ph remain subject to US jurisdiction. Iran's .ir was recently sought to be seized by some US private parties because of alleged Iranian support to terrorism. Although the plea was turned down, another court in another case may decide otherwise. With the 'Internet of Things', almost everything, including critical infrastructure, in every country will be on the network. Other countries cannot feel comfortable to have at the core of the Internet’s addressing system an organisation that can be dictated by one government.

ICANN must become a truly global body
Eleven years ago, in 2005, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus at the World Summit on the Information Society demanded that ICANN should “negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to replace its California Incorporation”.

A process is currently under-way within ICANN to consider the jurisdiction issue. It is important that this process provides recommendations that will enable ICANN to become a truly global body, for appropriate governance of very important global public goods.

Below are some options, and there could be others, that are available for ICANN to transit from US jurisdiction.

ICANN can get incorporated under international law. Any such agreement should make ICANN an international (not intergovernmental) body, fully preserving current ICANN functions and processes. This does not mean instituting intergovernmental oversight over ICANN.
ICANN can move core internet operators among multiple jurisdictions, i.e. ICANN (policy body for Internet identifiers), PTI [4] (the operational body) and the Root Zone Maintainer must be spread across multiple jurisdictions. With three different jurisdictions over these complementary functions, the possibility of any single one being fruitfully able to interfere in ICANN's global governance role will be minimized.
ICANN can institute a fundamental bylaw that its global governance processes will brook no interference from US jurisdiction. If any such interference is encountered, parameters of which can be clearly pre-defined, a process of shifting of ICANN to another jurisdiction will automatically set in. A full set-up – with registered HQ, root file maintenance system, etc – will be kept ready as a redundancy in another jurisdiction for this purpose. [5] Chances are overwhelming that given the existence of this bylaw, and a fully workable exit option being kept ready at hand, no US state agency, including its courts, will consider it meaningful to try and enforce its writ. This arrangement could therefore act in perpetuity as a guarantee against jurisdictional interference without actually having ICANN to move out of the US.
The US government can give ICANN jurisdictional immunity under the United States International Organisations Immunities Act . There is precedent of US giving such immunity to non-profit organisations like ICANN. [6] Such immunity must be designed in such a way that still ensures ICANN's accountability to the global community, protecting the community's enforcement power and mechanisms. Such immunity extends only to application of public law of the US on ICANN decisions and not private law as chosen by any contracting parties. US registries/registrars, with the assent of ICANN, can choose the jurisdiction of any state of the US for adjudicating their contracts with ICANN. Similarly, registries/registrars from other countries should be able to choose their respective jurisdictions for such contracts.

We do acknowledge that, over the years, there has been an appreciable progress in internationalising participation in ICANN's processes, including participation from governments in the Governmental Advisory Committee. However, positive as this is, it does not address the problem of a single country having overall jurisdiction over its decisions.

Issued by the following India based organisation:

Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
IT for Change, Bangalore
Free Software Movement of India, Hyderabad
Society for Knowledge Commons, New Delhi
Digital Empowerment Foundation, New Delhi
Delhi Science Forum, New Delhi
Software Freedom Law Centre - India, New Delhi
Third World Network - India, New Delhi

Supported by the following global networks:

Association For Progressive Communications
Just Net Coalition

For any clarification or inquiries you may may write to or call:

Parminder Jeet Singh: parminder@itforchange.net +91 98459 49445, or
Vidushi Marda: vidushi@cis-india.org +91 99860 92252

[1] Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

[2] The “NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement” , endorsed by a large number of governments and other stakeholders, including ICANN and US government, called for ICANN to become a “truly international and global organization”.

[3] See, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/00145123090/big-pharma-firms-seeking-pharmacy-domain-to-crowd-out-legitimate-foreign-pharmacies.shtml

[4] Public Technical Identifier, a newly incorporated body to carry out the operational aspects of managing Internet's identifiers.

[5] This can be at one of the existing non US global offices of ICANN, or the location of one of the 3 non-US root servers. Section 24.1 of ICANN Bylaws say, “The principal office for the transaction of the business of shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America. may also have an additional office or offices within or outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish”.

[6] E.g., International Fertilizer and Development Center was designated as a public, nonprofit, international organisation by US Presidential Decree, granting it immunities under United States International Organisations Immunities Act . See https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/internets-core-resources-are-a-global-public-good

Internet users fume as govt blocks 32 sites

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T13:46:25Z

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has ordered Internet service providers to block 32 websites, in cluding popular video-sharing plat forms such as Dailymotion and Vimeo, reportedly over concerns that they are being misused by Islamic State jihadists.

The article by Jaison Lewis was published in Mumbai Mirror on January 1, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The ban has angered free-speech proponents who allege that the Narendra Modi government is using national security as a pretext to censor online content. On Wednesday, tweets criticising the restrictions were trending on #GOIBlocks. Senior lawyer Karuna Nandy said that she would challenge the DoT order in the Supreme Court.

Apart from Dailymotion and Vimeo, Internet service providers have also been ordered to block Github and Pastebin, which are popular among programmers; Weebly, a free website creator; and Archive.org, a non-profit digital library.

Some Internet users, however, were able to access some of the sites. This could be because their Internet service providers have not yet implemented the DoT order or because the government has lifted restrictions on some web addresses, according to activists monitoring the blockage of the websites.

The order was issued under Section 69A (procedure for blocking public access) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The section allows authorities to block websites without giving any formal reason or making any public announcement.

However, Arvind Gupta, BJP's national head for information and technology, tweeted that the sites had been blocked over security concerns. "The Web sites have been blocked based on an advisory by Anti-Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS.The sites that have removed objectionable content andor cooperated with the ongoing investigations, are being unblocked," he wrote.

Gupta, however, did not explain how the sites were being misused by terrorists. Some of the sites are mostly frequented by programmers looking for open-source software and codes.

Nandy, a Supreme Court lawyer who specialises in human rights litigations, criticised the ban. "I will challenge the order in the Su preme Court this week. I will seek directions to lift the secrecy surrounding such bans and also request for a right to appeal," she said.

She added that censoring the Internet was against the idea of free expression guaranteed under the Constitution. "Such steps are not good for a healthy society," she said.

Pranesh Prakash, a policy director with the Centre for Internet and Society and one of the most vocal opponents of the blockage, said that the people had the right to know why the websites had been blocked.

"We still don't know why these blocks were issued: was it an overzealous copyright lawyer who found an indulgent judge to issue an overbroad and baseless order? Or was it a public servant who wrongly directed the Department of Electronics and IT to block the sites under the IT Act? We have no idea," said Prakash, who tweeted a picture of the DoT order on Wednesday.

He added that websites were frequently blocked without clear evidence of wrongdoing. "These laws must be changed," Prakash said.

Internet users also voiced their anger over the DoT order. "This only proves ATS is an idiot. If terrorists use buses, phones & Whatspp, you'll block whole system? #GOIBlocks," Poonam Sharma tweeted.

Some users retweeted a Modi post from August 2012: "As a common man, I join the protest against crackdown on freedom of speech!"

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/mumbai-mirror-jaison-lewis-jan-1-2015-internet-users-fume-as-govt-blocks-32-sites

Internet users flay Mumbai girls' arrest over Facebook post

praskrishna — 2012-11-20T11:35:04Z

The arrest of two girls over their Facebook post on shutdown in Mumbai for Bal Thackeray's funeral on Monday again opened a can of worms with netizens calling the move a "social media hijack by the powerful and the fundamentalists". Social media was abuzz with tweets and posts about the arrest, with most referring to the arrest as yet another move to curb freedom of speech on the Internet.

This post was published by IBN Live on November 20, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Noted journalist Gautam Chikermane tweeted "First Pondicherry businessman, now 21 year old Palghar girl. Next: all of us. Social media hijack by the powerful and the fundamentalists". Minister of State (Communications and IT) Milind Deora tweeted: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize ~ Voltaire".

Communication specialist Alyque Padamsee expressed shock at the arrest and the vandalism at the clinic of one of the girl's uncle. "I want to know how these girls have broken the law when all they said is that why should Mumbai come to a standstill. There is nothing derogatory against Thackeray. I do not see anything illegal in that," he said. Padamsee further said the Constitution provides everyone free speech and that "no one should be arrested on such flimsy grounds".

Pavan Duggal, Cyber law Expert and an advocate with Supreme Court also voiced similar views. "This is high time for the government for the review of the law. The government should amend the IT Act so as to narrow down its provisions as some of the these violate our constitutional right of free speech."

He added that it would be a bigger challenge for the prosecution to prove that the statement could incite communal disharmony and violence. "This should not be seen merely as "social media regulation", but as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression by both the law and the police," Centre for Internet and Society Policy Director Pranesh Prakash said.

The two girls--Shaheen Dhada and Renu--were sent to 14-day judicial custody by a court before which they were produced today but were granted bail within hours after they furnished personal bonds. There was also an attack on the clinic of an uncle of one of them by Sena activists.

The arrests also sparked an outrage with Press Council of India chief Markandey Katju today demanding "immediate" action against police personnel involved. While Dhada was arrested for the post, Dhada's friend Renu was arrested for 'liking' the post. "Police arrested both of them under section 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes). Today, they were granted bail," their advocate Sudhir Gupta said.

The duo was arrested following a police complaint lodged by a local Sena leader. After the comment was posted, a mob of nearly 40 Shiv Sainiks allegedly barged into Dhada's uncles's orthopaedic hospital at Palghar and vandalised the place on Sunday. However, no arrests were made in connection with the attack.

Some other tweets in support of the girls read: "Hatred of minorities, liberals is an epidemic on Twitter. Law shd be harsh on hatespeak not on democratic rights of 21 year olds!Cheerio" (@sagarikaghose) and "So the girl n frnd got arrested for posting stuff on FB did Shiv sainiks get arrested for destroying the doc's hospital?? #Mumbai #Balasaheb" (@SocoMumbai).

Last month, a businessman from Puducherry was arrested on the charge of posting "offensive" messages on social media targeting Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram.

The following image was also being circulated over the Internet and is said to be the Facebook post that led to the girls' arrest:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ibnlive-news-nov-20-2012-netizens-flay-mumbai-girls-arrest-over-facebook-post

Internet users enraged over US online spying

praskrishna — 2013-07-01T04:10:05Z

India is the fifth most tracked nation by American intelligence agencies.

The article by Maitreyee Boruah was published in the Times of India on June 29, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Have you been posting pictures and messages with gay abandon on your social networking sites or having personal discussions on instant chat or video messaging and thinking that no one other than the intended recipient(s) has access to it? Well, going by the recent revelation that government agencies, and that too from the US, have been spying on our internet usage and collating private information, even the most hardcore security settings for your online data are apparently of no use.

According to former US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee Edward Snowden's testimony, the US National Security Agency ( NSA) has been using major tech giants to spy on private information of users around the world. And India is the fifth most tracked nation by the US intelligence system. But isn't this a direct infringement on our right to privacy? Or are such measures the need of the hour, given the increasing incidences of terror acts across the world?

What should the Indian government do?

Recently, a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) was filed in the Indian Supreme Court on the issue of the web snooping by the US. The PIL sought the Centre to initiate action against internet companies for sharing information with foreign authorities, which amounts to breach of contract and violation of the right to privacy.

"First, we need to urgently enact a horizontal privacy law, which articulates privacy principles and institutes the office of the privacy commissioner. Second, we need to promote the use of encryption and other privacy-enhancing technologies. The use of foreign internet infrastructure by those in public offices should be banned, except in the case of public dissemination. And last, but not the least, take action against online firms that have access to personal data of users and violate the privacy of Indian citizens through the office of the regulator," suggests Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization, Centre for Internet and Society.

Anja Kovacs, project director at the Internet Democracy Project in India, meanwhile, wants the Indian government to assert itself. "The best the Indian government can do is to demand that this kind of snooping does not happen. However, it can't ensure that such episodes won't happen in the future, as there is no enforceable global legal framework to deal with online snooping."

Era of the Big Brother?

Given the lack of legal support, does it mean that internet users have no right to privacy? "We do have a right to privacy. Unfortunately, our right is not respected. By and large, unless they use special tools to protect themselves, internet users do not have any real privacy in many countries, including India," says Anja, adding, "The right to privacy is not explicitly included in the Constitution, and the Privacy Bill continues to be pending. Also, Indian intelligence agencies are not under supervision of the Parliament, which is an important weakness in the accountability system." Echoing Anja, Sunil says, "In India, unfortunately, our right to privacy is not sufficiently protected. Indian laws are not strong enough to safeguard privacy of Internet users."

Anger in the online community

A large number of internet users who we spoke to said they were "shocked" after hearing about the US government's spying mechanism. "The recent revelation of snooping by the US government is a clear case of intrusion into our privacy. It is absolutely illegal," says 24-year-old IT professional Subodh Gupta.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-maitreyee-boruah-june-29-2013-internet-users-enraged-over-us-online-spying

Internet Universality Indicators for a Safe, Secure and Inclusive Cyberspace for Sustainable Development

Admin — 2017-11-25T02:04:54Z

Amber Sinha attended an event organized by UNESCO in collaboration with the Ministry of Electronics and IT, Government of India in the run-up to the 5th Global Conferene on Cyberspace (GCCS 2017) on November 17, 2017 at UNESCO Conference Room in Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.

Agenda here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/internet-universality-indicators-for-a-safe-secure-and-inclusive-cyberspace-for-sustainable-development

Internet Surveillance Policy: “…the second time as farce?” – A Public Lecture by Caspar Bowden

praskrishna — 2011-09-08T03:19:35Z

The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, invites you to a public lecture by Caspar Bowden*, the Chief Privacy Adviser of Microsoft’s Worldwide Technology Office, on Internet Surveillance Policy: “…the second time as farce?

Abstract

In 2000, as Director of the independent think-tank, "Foundation for Information Policy Research", Caspar led a campaign to revise several aspects of a new comprehensive UK law governing electronic surveillance ("the RIP Act"). UK legislated in this area many years before most other countries, and the approach was widely criticized although some amendments were achieved. After a hiatus of a decade, many Commonwealth countries are now copying the RIP law (evidently unaware of the original controversies over its defects). Caspar will discuss the legal-technical intricacies of such legislation, the underlying policy dilemmas, the background context of the failed 1990s policy of “key escrow”, and the subsequent privacy catastrophe of blanket retention of the “traffic data” of all of the 500m citizens of the EU.

Caspar Bowden

Caspar Bowden is Microsoft's Worldwide Technology Officer for Privacy, providing advice on technology policy matters concerning privacy in over 40 countries, with particular focus on Europe and regions with horizontal privacy law. His goal is to ensure that users of Microsoft products and services are in control of their personal data and that fair information practices are respected. He is a specialist in data protection policy, privacy enhancing technology research, identity management and authentication.

Earlier he was the director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research and was also an expert adviser to the UK Parliament for the passage of three bills concerning privacy issues, and was co-organizer of the influential Scrambling for Safety public conferences on UK encryption and surveillance policy. His previous career over two decades ranged from investment banking (proprietary trading risk-management for option arbitrage), to software engineering (graphics engines and cryptography), including work for Goldman Sachs, Microsoft Consulting Services, Acorn, Research Machines, and IBM.

Who should attend?

This public talk aims to engage in a dialogue with anybody interested in questions of technology, surveillance, policy and the politics of Internet based governance. Students, research scholars, academics, practitioners, those in the business of technology development, design and study, are invited to attend the lecture that approaches the issue from different angles of technology, society and politics.

Entry: Free; Limited Seating

Registration recommended: prasad@cis-india.org

For additional info click here [PDF, 521 kb]

* Caspar is speaking in his private capacity and his remarks do not necessarily reflect any official Microsoft position

Videos

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/internet-surveillance-policy-lecture

Internet Speech: Perspectives on Regulation and Policy

akriti — 2019-04-01T16:38:54Z

The Centre for Internet & Society and the University of Munich (LMU), Germany are jointly organizing an international symposium at India Habitat Centre in New Delhi on April 5, 2019

Click to download the agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/internet-speech-perspectives-on-regulation-and-policy

Internet Shutdowns: A Modern-day Siege

Ayswarya Murthy — 2017-12-19T16:29:41Z

Strap: Technology activists, lawyers, politicians and NGOs weigh in on the spate of internet shutdowns in India in 2017.

Bangalore, Karnataka: For thousands of years, military sieges have been an effective means of depriving a population into submission. Attackers would surround the fort or city and simply wait for the food to run out. In today’s connected age, you can mount a successful siege remotely with a single signed order that can shut down the internet and practically bring life to a standstill.

So, it’s not surprising that inter-governmental organisations and NGOs around the world are starting to promote the idea that access to internet is a fundamental right, and watchdogs declare any deliberate interference to this access to be a violation of human rights. “In today’s modern digital world, shutting down mobile and internet networks is a drastic action that infringes on everyone’s rights and is inherently disproportionate. Internet shutdowns cut off everyone’s ability to speak and access information, regardless of whether they have done anything wrong. Considering the broad harm to rights that shutdowns can cause, government officials should certainly take them more seriously as a human rights violation,” says Cynthia Wong, senior internet researcher at Human Rights Watch.

But in India, there is no legal recourse yet against such decisions. In 2015, a Public Interest Litigation filed in the Gujarat High Court against a week-long internet shutdown was dismissed (as was a Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court in 2016 challenging this decision). In fact, tech entrepreneur and Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekar attributes the dramatic increase in the number of internet blocks in 2017, which has doubled since last year, to this ruling. “This dramatic increase in the number of internet blocks can be attributed to the Supreme Court ruling in February 2016 which upheld the right of districts and states to ban mobile internet services for maintaining law and order .”

Typically, mobile internet bans were enforced under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which can prohibit assembly of more than four people and is usually invoked by a district magistrate. “Indeed, mobs come together due to the spread of misinformation over internet services such as Facebook and WhatsApp,” says Chandrasekar. “However, internet shutdowns also disabled authentic news organisations who can dispel such misinformation. I have argued that governments and administrations do have the right to shut down internet or take down content consistent with the Constitution’s Article 19 guarantee of fundamental right to free speech being subject to reasonable restrictions. So, the debate is not whether the government has a right to temporarily shut down the internet or not, but does the government or administration use this right reasonably and with clear guidelines,” he warns.

Enter the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency of Public Safety) Rules that were released in August. The primary concern of tech activists is that these ‘Suspension Rules’ set a dangerous precedent because they legalise internet shutdowns where ideally there should be none. But these rules also received a wary welcome.

"Use of an archaic law like Section 144 of CrPC for shutting down the internet is not justified. The new rules seem to have been hastily put together without much forethought," according to Prasanth Sugathan, legal director at Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC). “There is no transparency on how these rules were drafted as there was no consultation with the stakeholders. These rules are not conducive to ensuring the right to internet access of citizens which is essential for the success of initiatives like Digital India. As regulations go, these aren’t particularly robust, giving central and state governments the power to shut down telecom services, without having to cite further reasoning than “public safety” and “national security”. In fact, the rules don’t even specify a maximum duration after which services must be restored."

Calling the whole deal shoddy, Sugathan says it seems like they were put out just to subvert the illegality of Internet shutdowns.

Chandrasekar also feels the process should have been more consultation-driven. “The rules can and must be improved to remove adhocism and arbitrary use. As I say repeatedly, these kinds of government policies run the real risk of straying from the reasonable restrictions acceptable to our Constitution to an infringement of the Right to Expression. Governments, especially political leadership, should be careful that bureaucratic lack of imagination or paranoia or simply laziness doesn’t cause that crossover from right to wrong.”

According to SFLC, which has been tracking internet shutdowns in the country over the past five years, authorities in India have shut down networks 60 times just in 2017, spelling a staggering cost to the economy beyond the incalculable harm to human rights. Brookings estimated that the 22 network shutdowns in India from 2015-2016 cost the country’s economy $968 million. It’s baffling that while the government is pushing citizens to embrace ‘Digital India’ on one hand, they are concurrently pulling the rug from underneath these same users with these total and partial internet shutdowns. “From the perspective of promoting India’s digital economy, if people learn they cannot rely on their mobile phone service because of arbitrary disruptions, they are less likely to adopt digital technologies. If the Indian government truly wants to be a global leader in the digital age, it should cease all arbitrary and overbroad restrictions on internet access,” says Wong.

Osama Manzer, founder of Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF), has an ever-expanding roster of people who were keenly affected by the shutdowns in their regions, irrespective of whether it last three days or three months. “One of the biggest impacts is that residents must live with is that their access to basic services becomes very limited. In Darjeeling, many state government employees were not paid their salaries because the banking system is online and centralised. The livelihood of sim card sellers and recharge shop owners, internet cafes and mom-and-pop shops that offer printing, scanning, online form filling services took a huge hit. It is especially detrimental to them since they rely on daily sales for their income,” he says.

While the economic impact of internet shutdowns has been documented, the social and psychological impact is just as crucial to investigate, says Manzer, especially in cases where these shutdowns are frequent and long term. DEF is in the final stages of releasing a report based on such a research. “We've found through our research that when shutdowns are ordered for a few days, residents can reason it out and some even find justifications for it. They may say the security and safety circumstances warranted it. But prolonged shutdowns have an acute negative impact on residents psychologically. Residents of Darjeeling, Kalimpong and J&K feel the impact of internet shutdowns acutely. They feel doubly isolated from the rest of the country and their faith in the government erodes. People we've interviewed have said they feel helpless and panicked. Some interviewees in Kashmir went so far as to question the democratic process and their right to it.”

Ayswarya Murthy is a Bangalore-based journalist and a member of 101Reporters.com, a pan-India network of grassroots reporters.

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

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/internet-shutdowns-a-modern-day-siege

Internet Shutdowns in 2016

japreet — 2017-04-28T13:50:09Z

An internet shutdown is an intentional disruption of internet or electronic communications, rendering them inaccessible or effectively unusable, for a specific population or within a location, often to exert control over the flow of information.

Download the report: PDF

There is no consolidated research on internet shutdowns worldwide and government policies relating to this phenomenon. Access, however, has been tracking instances of internet shutdowns here. According to this tracker, there were 56 internet shutdowns worldwide in 2016.

In this report, we have identified countries where shutdowns took place more than once in the past one year. We were able to identify these countries from the tracker that is being operated by Access. We have looked at the internet shutdown practices and government policies on shutdowns in these countries. The countries include Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, India, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey and Uganda.

We have greatly relied on media coverage of internet shutdowns in the aforementioned countries and reports by various organisations including Freedom House, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Article 19, Access, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Brookings Institution, Annenberg School of Communication, OSCE, Centre for Communication Governance, OONI and Dyn documenting and/or analysing internet censorship in these countries.

While documenting internet shutdown practices in the countries identified above, we have looked at the geographical coverage of a shutdown i.e. whether it was carried out nationwide or in specific regions and type of internet services that were restricted i.e. whether access was restricted to the whole internet, mobile internet services or specific messaging services and/or applications. In this regard, we have referred to a report published by the Brookings Institution, Internet shutdowns cost countries $2.4 billion last year that has analysed the economic impact of internet shutdowns. In this report, the author has identified six categories of disruptions: national internet, subnational internet, national mobile internet, subnational mobile internet, national app/service, and subnational app/ service. I have used this classification to understand and document internet shutdown practices in the aforementioned countries.

This report was featured on the website of the Keep Us Online campaign led by the Internet Freedom Foundation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/internet-shutdowns-in-2016