We are anonymous, we are legion

Govt cracks down on cyber jehad network, blocks access to 32 websites

praskrishna — 2015-01-03T03:29:21Z

The Modi government is starting the New Year with the resolve to wipe out terror and it has cracked down on websites that have been carrying anti-India views and spreading the propaganda of the Islamic State (IS).

The article published in India Today on January 1, 2015 quotes Pranesh Prakash.

Reacting to an alert from the antiterror squad of a state police department, the Department of Telecom (DoT) has blocked access to 32 websites. The DoT order that was tweeted by Pranesh Prakash, policy director of the Bangalore-based research organisation, said that 32 URLs have been blocked under section 69 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.

The order was reportedly issued on December 16 and it was shared on Twitter on Wednesday. GitHub, Archive.org, Imgur, Vimeo, Daily Motion, Pastebin, sourceforge, justpaste, cryptbin were among the sites that were blocked.

As reports emerged on the ban of these sites, there was outrage on Twitter on the issue of internet censorship. However, most of the websites mentioned in the list that were to be blocked were accessible. Pastebin and Internet Archive, two websites that have reportedly been blocked, tweeted their views.

"If you are from India and unable to visit Pastebin, please email us," Pastebin tweeted on December 19. Internet Archive tweeted on December 31 that they too received complaints from users in India who can't access its website.

Reacting to the outrage, Arvind Gupta, national head of the BJP IT Cell took to Twitter and said that these sites have been blocked after an alert from an anti-terrorism squad that most of them were carrying anti-India content from the Islamic State (IS).

"We should congratulate the government for taking a preventive and precautionary step in a proactive manner based on an advisory," Gupta told Mail Today.

He added that he does not have any details of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) order and only reacted to the Twitter debate on the subject.

Intelligence agencies have been struggling to monitor terror activities on cyber space. There have been reports of terror groups using social media to attract young minds to jehadi ideology.

The recent arrest of Bangalore-based executive Mehdi Masroor Biswas, who was operating a Twitter handle under the the name @ShamiWitness and promoting the views of the Islamic State, has come as a wake-up call for security agencies. Biswas, an engineer working as a "manufacturing executive" with ITC Foods, was nabbed from his rented oneroom apartment after a news report stated that his was the most popular IS Twitter account with close to 17,000 followers, and his tweets were getting viewed over two lakh times a month.

Sources said there are close to 30,000 such Twitter handles and other social media forums along with websites that are spewing venom, and little can be done to monitor all of them and act on time. With cyber threat becoming a clear and present danger, the Centre has decided to set up a highlevel committee to only monitor social media and cyber space. Counter-terror officials believe that the jehadi nexus has a huge bearing on India as youth active on social media are vulnerable to the propaganda being carried out online.

Other than @ShamiWitness, there are Twitter handles such as @MagnetGas with radical views and pro-IS tone that are now under the lens. What is disturbing is that many such sites are India-specific and some are believed to be handled by Indians.

"If there is misuse of Internet and social media, it needs to be dealt with legally. The Internet is like a public place, so if there are extreme views, the state needs to exercise its powers," says D.C. Pathak, former chief of the Intelligence Bureau.

This is not the first time that the DoT has clamped down on websites for promoting "objectionable" content. In June 2013, 39 websites that allowed users to share pornographic content were reportedly blocked.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-today-january-1-2015-govt-cracks-down-on-cyber-jehad-network-blocks-access-to-32-websites

Minds that (should) matter

praskrishna — 2015-02-26T16:34:25Z

Thinkers who best explain a rapidly-changing India to the world (and the world to India).

The article by Raju Narisetti was published in Forbes India magazine on January 2, 2015.

Sunil Abraham
Executive director of The Centre for Internet and Society. Has deep insights into India’s rapidly growing digital culture as well as the threats to it from misguided government regulation.

Shuddhabrata Sengupta
Runs Raqs Media Collective and is a founder of the Sarai Collective which does the rare examination of the interplay of urban India/technology/culture.

Anusha Rizvi
The former journalist who directed Peepli Live is now a filmmaker. Peepli was the first ever Indian film to be screened at Sundance. Her response to broadcast media and society issues always make you think.

Mohandas Pai
Ex-Infosys and now with the Manipal Group, he is active in public policy and corporate governance issues, and is not afraid to speak his mind. He was behind the Bangalore Political Action Committee—first-of-its-kind in India—and is also an activist shareholder who has minority shareholders’ interests in mind.

Ramesh Ramanathan
Ex-Citibanker, who heads Janalakshmi, a micro/alternative finance organisation, that has attracted Wall Street money. Offers honest and workable solutions through Janagraha, a hybrid public-private partnership initiative.

Satish Acharya
A brilliant cartoonist from Mangalore. A small-town guy whose views on Indian politics and Indian sport are spot on as he traverses the fine line of cartoons in India: Not too cerebral, but never clichéd and banal either.

Chhavi Rajawat
A young MBA who chose to go back to her ancestral village, Soda in Rajasthan, to help bring management skills to grassroots governance. Won elections to be its sarpanch. A high-profile doer, she will be worth listening to about hands-on governance.

Payal Chawla
While her past claim to fame is taking on Coca-Cola over workplace harassment, as a lawyer and founder of her own law firm, Juscontractus, this University of Chicago alumni would be a good way to track India’s troubled legal system.

Pushkar
A professor of Humanities and Social Sciences at BITS Pilani’s Goa Campus, he is particularly good on a major challenge for India: Reforming its education system.

Karuna Nundy
A Supreme Court lawyer involved in major commercial and human rights litigation and legal policy, she has contributed in a major way on gender justice in India, recently helping with the new anti-rape laws.

Binalakshmi Nepram
She fights racism against people from the North East and says it like it needs to be said in a country with deep geographical and regional prejudices.

Ireena Vittal
This former McKinsey consultant has a lot of good things to say about smart cities.

Economic and Political Weekly
Ignore its left-leaning interpretations and conclusions. Focus on its outstanding data.

GVL Narasimha Rao
GVL knows his psephology like few others do. His current turn as a spokesman for the BJP yields unrelenting evidence that is often hard to refute. And he takes sides when taking sides can be personally risky.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/forbes-india-january-2-2015-raju-narisetti-

India 'jihadi' web blocking causes anger

praskrishna — 2015-01-03T02:48:48Z

A government block on more than 30 high-profile websites has caused anger across India.

The story was published in BBC on January 2, 2015. It was also mirrored in the Puffington Post the same day. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

India's Department of Telecoms ordered the blocking of the sites in order to prevent the publicising of "jihadi activities".

After considerable pressure, four of the sites - Weebly, Vimeo, Daily Motion and Github - were unblocked.

Officials said the other sites would have their blocks lifted if they complied with the "law of the land".

The Indian Ministry for Communication and Information Technology said in a statement: "It was stated that Anti National group are using social media for mentoring Indian youths to join the Jihadi activities."

It went on to say that the primary concern was that users posting material on the sites did not require any authentication, and that identities could be hidden.

The four websites that have been unblocked were said to have worked with the Indian government to address concerns - although it is unclear what changes, if any, have been made.

Some users were reporting that they were still unable to reach the apparently unblocked sites.

Pranesh Prakash, from the India-based Centre for Internet and Society, said: "Any intelligent person can see these sites don't incite terrorism."

'Many complaints'

Ahead of the ban lifting, a Vimeo spokeswoman said: "It is Vimeo's longstanding policy not to allow videos that promote terrorism, and we remove such videos whenever we become aware of them.

"We have not received notice from the Indian government concerning such videos and have contacted them requesting the blocking order to identify, and evaluate the video in question."

Many internet users in the country are angry that other sites remain blocked, in particular Pastebin - a site used for "dumping" text online anonymously - and The Internet Archive, a US organisation that offers a database of old websites.

The Internet Archive said on Twitter that it had received "many complaints" from users who were unable to access the service.

India has a history of sporadically blocking websites, or issuing warnings about online content.

In August 2012, 245 sites were blocked by the government in an attempt, it said, to quell violence.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-january-2-2015-india-jihadi-web-blocking-causes-anger

Vimeo, DailyMotion, Pastebin Among Sites Blocked In India For 'Anti-India' Content From ISIS

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T16:43:20Z

The Indian government has convinced ISPs to block dozens of popular websites accused of hosting “anti-India” content posted by members of the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

The story was published by IB Times on December 31. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

GitHub, Pastebin, as well as the video sites Vimeo and DailyMotion were among those rendered inaccessible to many of India’s nearly 250 million Internet users.

The text repository Pastebin first tweeted on Dec. 19 that it had been blocked, confirming on Dec. 26 that the blockade was at the behest of India’s Department of Telecom. Pranesh Prakash, the policy director at the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, posted a list of the blocked sites Wednesday. Notice the list was issued Dec. 17.

Insane! Govt orders blocking of 32 websites including @internetarchive @vimeo @github @pastebin #censorship #FoEx pic.twitter.com/F75ngSGohJ

â€” Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh_prakash) December 31, 2014

Hours later Arvind Gupta, the national head of information technology at India’s Bharatiya Janata Party, confirmed on Twitter that a block had indeed been put in place. Other than referencing “ongoing investigations,” Gupta did not provide specific details on the type of threats being made.

The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS. 1/2

â€” Arvind Gupta (@buzzindelhi) December 31, 2014

The sites that have removed objectionable content and/or cooperated with the on going investigations, are being unblocked. 2/2

â€” Arvind Gupta (@buzzindelhi) December 31, 2014

The move comes after it was discovered that the operator of a prominent pro-ISIS Twitter account was based in Bangalore. Mehdi Masroor Biswas, 24, was arrested earlier this month after a Channel 4 News investigation determined he was behind @ShamiWitness, an account with more than 17,700 followers and 2 million tweets seen each month.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiled the “Make in India” campaign earlier this year in an attempt to encourage international businesses to invest in India. The campaign specifically mentions information technology as a sector in which India wishes to improve.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ib-times-jeff-stone-december-31-2014-sites-blocked-in-india-for-anti-india-content-from-isis

Govt blocks 32 websites, including Vimeo and Github

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T16:09:24Z

The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying anti-India content from ISIS.

The article by Moulishree Srivastava was published in Livemint on December 31, 2014. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The Indian government has blocked access to 32 websites based on the advice of an anti-terrorism team. The blocked URLs (uniform resource locator, an address to any website on the Internet) include files, videos and source code-sharing websites such as dailymotion.com, github.com, vimeo.com and archive.org.

In an order, tweeted by Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Bengaluru-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society on Wednesday, the department of telecom said the 32 URLs had been blocked under Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and under Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. “The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying anti-India content from ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria),” Arvind Gupta, head of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s information technology cell, said in a message on Twitter.

His tweet came in response to a backlash to the move from Internet users. “The sites that have removed objectionable content and/or cooperated with the ongoing investigations, are being unblocked,” he added. If Internet service providers (ISPs) don’t comply with the demand, they are liable to being penalized, the order said.

The rules give the central government powers to block access to information if it is in the interest of the “sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above.” Intermediaries failing to comply with the rules are punishable with fines and prison terms of up to seven years, it notes. “Pastebin is still blocked in India.

We are getting many reports about this. The Indian government has blocked us...,” said one of the source code sharing websites, Pastebin.com, in a tweet. This is not the first time the government has cracked down on websites. A recent report by Freedom House, an independent watchdog, said the information ministry received a total of 130 court orders to block Web content between February 2009 and December 2013.

In February 2014, the then minister of communication and information technology told Parliament that 62 URLs were blocked in 2013 under Section 69A for hosting objectionable information with the potential to disturb public order. As many as 82 URLs were blocked on 18 September 2013 in addition to 26 blocked a week earlier after violence escalated between Hindu and Muslim communities in Muzaffarnagar district of Uttar Pradesh. A total of 362 URLs were blocked in response to communal violence in the northeast, the report said. “The problem isn’t just about the specific sites that are blocked; the prob(lem) always about the bad law...,” tweeted Prakash. “The 69A rules don’t allow for transparency, accountability, time-limits on blocks, etc. So easily misused by govt. + courts + individuals.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-december-31-2014-moulishree-srivastava-govt-blocks-32-websites

DoT Reportedly Orders Blocking of 32 Websites Including GitHub, Archive.org, SourceForge

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T14:51:39Z

Many users on Twitter are claiming that several websites, including many software development resources such as GitHub and SourceForge, along with research resources like the Internet Archive have all been blocked on order of the Department of Telecom.

The story was published in NDTV on December 31, 2014. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

A letter circulating online shows a list of 32 URLs that ISPs have reportedly been ordered to block, with most of these URLs being entire websites, instead of specific webpages that's usually been the case with such blocks in the past.

We tried to verify the users' claims, but on both our office broadband network, and also on Airtel and Vodafone 3G networks, all the sites were opening properly at the time of writing. Interestingly, many of the sites failed the load at the first try, but simply hitting refresh once solved the problem.

This does not mean that blocking is not happening - it is possible that the order has been sent recently, and will take some time to be fully implemented. Here is the email which purportedly shows the list of the 32 blocked URLs, as posted by Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director of the Center for Inernet and Society:

No information is available at present to confirm if blocking is truly happening, or why, but we are trying to ascertain the exact details and will update this story with the information as soon as possible.

However, there is some partial confirmation because both Pastebin and the Internet Archive have tweeted about blocking from India.

Such blocks in the past have been due to John Doe orders but the fact it is targeting software development sites like Github and Sourceforge is strange - the John Doe orders have specifically been used to block piracy of films, and blocking off sites that have no connection to movies makes no sense.

Arvind Gupta, the National Head of the BJP IT cell also took to Twitter, stating that these websites were being blocked for security reasons, based on the advice of the Anti-Terrorism Squad. According to Gupta's Tweets, the sites were being unblocked as soon as they removed "objectionable materials", allegedly related to ISIS.

It's extremely unusual that a government decision is being communicated by a political party official - if the Department of Telecom is blocking sites, then it should be the one to communicate and clarify these events. However, so far, it has not issued any statements, and neither has the IT Ministry.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-december-31-2014-dot-reportedly-orders-blocking-of-32-websites-including-github-archiveorg-sourceforge

Government blocks over 60 websites including github & sourceforge on anti-terror advisory

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T14:22:58Z

Over 60 websites and links, including popular online tools like Github and Sourceforge used by thousands of programmers have been blocked in India, triggering angry protests by Internet users.

The article by P.K. Jayadevan and Neha Alawadhi was published in the Economic Times on December 31, 2014. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The websites were blocked for hosting content that is pro terrorist group ISIS and not cooperating with government investigations, officials said.

Arvind Gupta, the head of IT Cell, BJP Tweeted: "The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS. The sites that have removed objectionable content and/or cooperated with the on going investigations, are being unblocked."

Based on an order issued by the country's telecom department, in a letter dated December 17 and a subsequent letter on December 19, over 60 websites have been blocked by various internet service providers in the country.

While some internet service providers are yet to block these websites, many users have been reporting frequent outages in these web services over the last two weeks.

Websites like Pastebin don't host any content but are a platform for users to paste text. Popular video networks like Vimeo and Dailymotion are among the websites that have been blocked.

Officials from the department of Information Technology and the department of telecom were not available for comment. "These are all providing very dangerous kind of cut and paste services..You can take code, cut it, paste it, remove it, delete it," said one government official who requested anonymity.

The government has invoked section 69A of the Information technology Act (2000) and Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules ("Blocking Rules") to ban these websites.

Many websites have been blocked in India from time to time on various grounds. In September, following the Muzaffarnagar riots, over 80 websites and links on social media were blocked.

However, the inclusion of services like Github and Sourceforge that host code for open source software are causing much anger among the developer community. "Sometimes they might need to block specific URLs, but blocking the entire website is wrong or they haven't thought through it," said Thejesh GN, the co-founder of Datameet and an open source developer.

"There is also a lack of transparency where people don't get to know why their sites were blocked," he added.

"We're aware of reports of connectivity issues in India. We're looking into it, and will update with more information when we have it," a Github spokesperson said.

In June 2014, the Delhi High Court ordered a block of 472 file sharing websites including Google Docs and Pirate Bay following a complaint filed by Sony Entertainment. The entertainment company was hacked and contents from its servers were shared by hackers on various file sharing websites. In earlier instances, many websites have been blocked for copyright infringement as well.

"Courts unfortunately are not exercising restraint and are indulging ignorant copyright lawyers," said Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society. Prakash said that most of the sites on the list don't host copyrighted material themselves and a case can not be made against them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-december-31-2014-jayadevan-neha-alawadhi-december-31-2014-govt-blocks-over-60-websites

Centre blocks 32 websites for security reasons, restores some later

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T14:13:03Z

The Centre on Wednesday asked Internet Service Providers (ISP) to block 32 websites citing national security concerns, especially from terror group ISIS.

The article by S. Ronendra Singh was published in the Hindu Businessline on December 31, 2014. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The move created a flutter on social networking sites, as most of the Web sites, such as archive.org, vimeo.com, github.com, pastebin.com, codepad.org and paste2.org, were being used by global communities like application developers for free movies and books, coders and text sharing.

By late evening, some sites were restored.

Sources in the Ministry of Telecommunications and Information Technology confirmed the development and told BusinessLine: “It was based on some national security issues, and we cannot compromise with our nation’s security….”

A senior official from the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) said the directive had come from a Mumbai court after the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had approached it to block some Web sites carrying anti-India content.

The matter came to light after a circular, purportedly sent by DoT to ISPs, showed up on social networking sites, listing the sites, along with some screen shots. Incidentally, the said circular had edited out the letter head, date and the signature below. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s IT cell head, Arvind Gupta, tweeted saying ‘the Web sites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by the Anti-Terrorism Squad, and were carrying anti-India content from ISIS’.

However, later in the evening, Gupta, in his tweet said, some of the Web sites such as vimeo.com have been restored because they have removed ‘objectionable content and/or cooperated with the on going investigations’.

However, the blocked Web sites raised a furore in the social media wherein people said the Government should amend the laws than do such things.

“The problem isn’t just about the specific sites that are blocked; the problem is always about the bad law + process relating to #GoIBlocks,” Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at Centre for Internet and Society tweeted. He said the 69A Rules (of the IT Act 2000) does not allow for transparency, accountability and time-limits on blocks, so it is easily misused by the Government, the courts and individuals.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-businessline-december-31-2015-s-ronendra-singh-

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

Government blocks 32 websites to check ISIS propaganda

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T13:37:39Z

The Centre has blocked 32 websites, including vimeo.com, dailymotion.com, pastebin.com and github.com, in an effort to curb ISIS propaganda, prompting a wave of online protests.

The article by Kim Arora was published in the Times of India on January 1, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

An Indian "hacktivist" group, Anonymous India, has threatened reprisal. By Wednesday evening, however, websites that had complied with the government order to remove objectionable content had been unblocked, sources said.

A confidential department of telecom order, dated December 17, instructing all internet service licensees to block the websites appeared online on Wednesday. When contacted to verify the news, Dr Gulshan Rai, director of the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), told TOI the directions had been issued to internet service providers following a Mumbai additional chief metropolitan magistrate's November order directing the government's Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) to implement the same.

He added that Mumbai's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had approached the judiciary after interrogating Arif Majeed, a 23-year-old ISIS recruit from Kalyan. More recently, Bengaluru professional Mehdi Biswas was arrested for allegedly spreading ISIS propaganda on Twitter. "These websites were being used to invite youths to join ISIS. We had contacted the websites sometime back and asked for the removal of the objectionable content. At that time, our communications were ignored. Some of them have now agreed to work with the government. The websites that have complied are being unblocked," Rai told TOI.

The move met with opposition from the online community. While the tech community opposed the Github ban, others were upset about video-sharing websites like dailymotion.com and vimeo.com being taken down. "By blocking vimeo and dailymotion along with other websites, India is walking in the footsteps of Pakistan," tweeted @baawraman.

The list of websites in the DoT document was heavy on large text-sharing and collaboration websites, like Github and Pastebin, popular with coders and software developers. Many objected to the blocking of entire websites instead of specific URLs hosting problematic content. However, Rai explained that individual URLs could not be blocked because of the "high mobility of content" on the websites. "It can just be removed and pasted elsewhere. There are no checks and balances," he said.

Hacktivist group Anonymous India tweeted, "One fine morning, Indian government decided to block sites like Github. Now now, it is time to wake-up. Government of India, Expect Us," a tweet from their handle @opindia_revenge said.

As questions began to be raised on social networks, BJP IT cell head Arvind Gupta tweeted, "The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by the Anti-Terrorism Squad, and were carrying anti-India content from ISIS. The sites that have removed objectionable content and/or cooperated with the ongoing investigations, are being unblocked."

The sustainability of counter-measures like blanket blocking to contain threats is being questioned. Prasanth Sugathan, counsel at Software Freedom and Law Center, said such a move is short-sighted. "If you block one website, terrorists can always use another one. Or they will move to using encrypted channels, peer-to-peer communication or even telephones. One can't block everything. In my opinion, such a move only inconveniences the daily users and doesn't solve the long-term purpose," said Sugathan. The sentiment was echoed by common Twitter users as well.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's tweet from August 2012 condemning blanket blocking of websites was pulled out for recirculation. "As a common man, I join the protest against crackdown on freedom of speech! Have changed my DP. 'Sabko Sanmati De Bhagwan.' #GOIBlocks," Modi had tweeted on August 24, 2012.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Bengaluru-based Center for Internet and Society, questioned the lack of transparency around the practice of blocking websites under the Indian law. "Qn for govt: Why does the law require secrecy of web blocking orders when it doesn't allow such secrecy for books, films? #GoIBlocks," he tweeted, adding, "The 69A Rules don't allow for transparency, accountability, time-limits on blocks, etc. So easily misused by govt. + courts + individuals." The websites were blocked under section 69 A of the IT Act, 2000 and the IT (Procedure and sdafeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) rules, 2009.

Currently, the Supreme Court is in the middle of hearing a clutch of petitions challenging several IT Act provisions, including blocking and takedown of websites.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-jan-1-2015-kim-arora-government-blocks-32-websites-to-check-isis-propaganda

Department of Telecommunications Order u/s. 69A IT Act Blocking 32 URLS

pranesh — 2014-12-31T14:36:01Z

On December 17, 2014, the Dept. of Telecommunications blocked 32 URLs (as it was ordered to do so by the by Dept. of Electronics & IT — specifically the Designated Officer under section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009), those being: 01) https://justpaste.it/ 02) http://hastebin.com 03) http://codepad.org 04) http://pastie.org 05) https://pasteeorg 06) http://paste2.org 07) http://slexy.org 08) http://paste4btc.com/ 09) http://0bin.net 10) http://www.heypasteit.com 11) http://sourceforge.net/projects/phorkie 12) http://atnsoft.com/textpaster 13) https://archive.org 14) http://www.hpage.com 15) http://www.ipage.com/ 16) http://www.webs.com/ 17) http://www.weebly.com/ 18) http://www.000webhost.com/ 19) https://www.freehosting.com 20) https://vimeo.com/ 21) http://www.dailymotion.com/ 22) http://pastebin.com 23) https://gist.github.com 24) http://www.ipaste.eu 25) https://thesnippetapp.com 26) https://snipt.net 27) http://tny.ct (Tinypaste) 28) https://github.com (gist-it) 29) http://snipplr.com/ 30) http://termbin.com 31) http://www.snippetsource.net 32) https://cryptbin.com

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/2014-12-17_DoT-32-URL-Block-Order.pdf

December 2014 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2015-01-12T16:56:54Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) wishes you a very happy new year and welcomes you to the twelfth issue of the newsletter (December 2014).

Highlights

CIS prepared a policy brief that identifies the problem areas with the current work flow being used to publish documents and proposes suitable modifications to make them easy to locate, authentic and accessible.
NVDA team conducted two workshops. The first one was held at the Hyderabad Central University for reading and writing in Telugu. The second one was held at the Blind Empowerment Foundation in Kolkata for reading and writing in Bangla.

Nehaa Chaudhari participated in the 29^th WIPO-SCCR held in Geneva from December 8 to 12, 2014 and on behalf of CIS gave statements on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations , Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching, Research Institutions and Persons with Disabilities , made a brief pointed intervention on the Broadcast Treaty , and briefly interviewed Prof. Crews on his Updated Study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives .
Nehaa Chaudhari analyses the broadening of definitions/concepts in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty versus those in pre-existing international instruments.
Maggie Huang, an intern at CIS as part of the Pervasive Technologies projects conducted interviews with fabless semiconductor industry professionals in Taiwan. The findings are highlighted in two separate blog entries. The first one explores some of their views on the current intellectual property system and the second explores the tension between market forces and governmental intervention in providing access to mobile technology .
Tejaswini Niranjana, a distinguished fellow at CIS wrote an op-ed in the Hindu telling readers to see the ongoing Sanskrit versus German controversy as a welcome opportunity to discuss the real and persistent problems of our education system.
Vidushi Marda and Bhairav Acharya have co-authored a white paper that seeks to identify aspects of privacy in Islamic Law and demonstrate that the notion of privacy was recognized and protected in traditional Islamic law.
Ashna Ashesh and Bhairav Acharya have produced a white paper seeks to locate privacy in Classical Hindu Law, and by doing so, displace the notion that privacy is an inherently 'Western' concept that is the product of a modernist legal system.
Vipul Kharbanda authored a white paper establishing the relationship between privacy and confidentiality.
Geetha Hariharan in a blog entry examines the constitutional validity of Section 69A and the Blocking Rules.
Shyam Ponappa in an article published by the Business Standard writes that India's current policies for telecommunications don't serve our interests and tells readers what must change.

Accessibility and Inclusion

Under a grant from the Hans Foundation we are doing two projects. The first project is on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India. CIS in partnership with CLPR (Centre for Law and Policy Research) compiled the National Compendium of Policies, Programmes and Schemes for Persons with Disabilities (29 states and 6 union territories). The publication has been finalised and is being printed. The draft chapters and the quarterly reports can be accessed on the project page. The second project is on developing text-to-speech software for 15 Indian languages. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

►NVDA and eSpeak

Monthly Update

December 2014 Report (Suman Dogra; December 30, 2014).

Events Organized

Telugu eSpeak Training with NVDA (Organized by NVDA team; Hyderabad Central University, Hyderabad; December 1-2, 2014).
Bangla eSpeak training with NVDA (Organized by NVDA team; Blind Empowerment Foundation, Kolkata; December 19-20, 2014).

Upcoming Event

Training in Use of eSpeak with Malayalam (Co-organized by CIS, DAISY Forum of India and Chakshumathi Assistive Technology Centre; Trivandrum; January 24 - 25, 2015, Trivandrum).

►Other

Blog Entry

Availability and Accessibility of Government Information in Public Domain (Sunil Abraham, Nirmita Narasimhan, Beliappa, and Anandhi Viswanathan; December 9, 2014).

Participation in Event

First meeting of the high level committee on National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility (Organized by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology; December 30, 2014; New Delhi). Sunil Abraham participated in this meeting.

Media Coverage

When technology is able but the mindset is not (Governance Now; December 1-15 issue). Sunil Abraham and Nirmita Narasimhan gave their inputs.

Access to Knowledge

As part of the Access to Knowledge programme we are doing two projects. The first one (Pervasive Technologies) under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is for research on the complex interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property to support intellectual property norms that encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The second one (Wikipedia) under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

►Pervasive Technologies

As part of the Pervasive Technologies project, Maggie Huang conducted interviews with fabless semiconductor industry professionals in Taiwan. The findings from the samples are highlighted in four part series. The third and fourth parts have been published:

Blog Entries

[Open] Innovation and Expertise > Patent Protection & Trolls in a Broken Patent Regime (Maggie Huang; December 26, 2014).
"Copyright Management in the Age of Mobile Music" - Living Methodology Document (Maggie Huang; December 26, 2014).

►Other

Blog Entries

Nehaa Chaudhari attended the 29^th WIPO-SCCR held in Geneva from December 8 to 12. The following are the outputs:

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 9, 2014).
29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS- 2nd (brief) Intervention on the Broadcast Treaty (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 11, 2014).
The Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 11, 2014).
29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention: Questions to Prof. Kenneth Crews on his Updated Study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 14, 2014).
29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Statement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching, Research Institutions and Persons with Disabilities (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 20, 2014).
Protection of Broadcasting Organisations under the Proposed Treaty as Compared to Other International Conventions (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 21, 2014).

Participation in Event

Save the Date - 10 December 2014: The Broadcasting Treaty: A Solution in Search of a Problem? (Organized at WIPO; December 10, 2014). Nehaa Chaudhari was a speaker at this side event. The details were originally published by Knowledge Ecology International.

Media Coverage

SCCR 29: Public Interest Organizations Statements regarding the Broadcasting Treaty (Knowledge Ecology International; December 9, 2014).
SCCR 29 Libraries, Archives and Public Interest NGOs in Q&A with Dr. Crews (Knowledge Ecology International; December 11, 2014).
At WIPO, Study On Copyright Exceptions Stimulates Broad Discussion With Author (Catherine Saez; December 18, 2014).
WIPO Delegates Hear Concerns of NGOs on Exceptions for Libraries (Catherine Saez; IP Watch ; December 19, 2014).

►Wikipedia

As part of the project grant from the Wikimedia Foundation we have reached out to more than 3500 people across India by organizing more than 100 outreach events and catalysed the release of encyclopaedic and other content under the Creative Commons (CC-BY-3.0) license in four Indian languages (21 books in Telugu, 13 in Odia, 4 volumes of encyclopaedia in Konkani and 6 volumes in Kannada, and 1 book on Odia language history in English).

Newspaper Article

Beyond the Language Tussle (Tejaswini Niranjana; The Samaja, November 17, 2014).

Blog Entries

Odia Wikisource campus project at Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (Subhashish Panigrahi; December 3, 2014).
Several Publications Now Available under Creative Commons License (Subhashish Panigrahi; December 28, 2014).
Odia Wikisource workshop at New Delhi (Subhashish Panigrahi; December 30, 2014). The event was organized by CIS in collaboration with "The Intellects" on December 14.

News and Media Coverage

CIS-A2K team gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Odia Wikipedia (Dhatri; December 1, 2014).
Odia Wikipedia (Odiapua; December 1, 2014).
Access to Rare Books Made Easy (Diana Sahu; Indian Express; December 5, 2014).
Tulu Wikipedia gets some push (Hindu Businessline; December 13, 2014).
Tulu Wikipedia (Kannada Prabha; December 14, 2014).
Tulu Wikipedia (Vijaya Karnataka; December 15, 2014).
Tulu Wikipedia (VijayaVani; December 27, 2014).
Works of Veerasalingam Pantulu on web (Hans India; December 31, 2014).
Wiki Winter Camp - Coverage in Sakshi (Sakshi; December 31, 2014).
Wiki Winter Camp - Coverage in Eenadu (Eenadu; December 31, 2014).

Event Co-organized

Odia Wikisource Sabha 2014 (Co-organized by CIS-A2K and Odia Wikimedia Community; November 28, 2014). Subhashish Panigrahi participated in the event.

Participation in Events

ICT for Development (Organized by Christ University; December 3, 2014). Dr. U.B. Pavanaja was a speaker at this event.
Swatantra 2014: Fifth International Free Software Conference, Kerala (Organized by ICFOSS, Govt. of Kerala; Hotel Hycinth by Sparsa, Trivandrum; December 18 - 20, 2014). T. Vishnu Vardhan chaired a session on Wikimedia and Access to Knowledge in India and Rahimanuddin Shaik co-presented on Making DLI Accessible.

►Openness

Blog Entry

Department of Science and Technology & Department of Biotechnology adopt Open Access Policy (Anubha Sinha; December 29, 2014).

Participation in Events

Tech for Citizen Engagement 2014 (Organized by Omidyar Network; New Delhi; December 11, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a speaker in the session "Rules of Engagement: Emerging Trends in Citizen Outreach".
Swatantra 2014: Fifth International Free Software Conference, Kerala (Organized by ICFOSS, Govt. of Kerala; Hotel Hycinth by Sparsa, Trivandrum; December 18 - 20, 2014). Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam was a speaker and made a presentation on Open Science.

Internet Governance

►Privacy

As part of our Surveillance and Freedom: Global Understandings and Rights Development (SAFEGUARD) project with Privacy International we are engaged in enhancing respect for the right to privacy in developing countries. During the month we published the following blog entries:

White Papers

Locating Constructs of Privacy within Classical Hindu Law (Ashna Ashesh and Bhairav Acharya; December 29, 2014).
Relationship between Privacy and Confidentiality (Vipul Kharbanda; December 30, 2014).

Blog Entry

Identifying Aspects of Privacy in Islamic Law (Vidushi Marda and Bhairav Acharya; December 14, 2014).

Upcoming Events

Security, Governments, and Data: Technology and Policy (Co-organized by CIS and the Observer Research Foundation; January 8, 2015; New Delhi).
CPDP 2015 : The eighth international conference on computers, privacy and data protection will be held in Brussels from January 21 to 23, 2015. CIS is a moral supporter of CPDP.

Event Organized

Security and Surveillance: A public discussion on Optimizing Security while Safeguarding Human Rights (CIS; December 19, 2014).

►Free Speech

Under a grant from the MacArthur Foundation, CIS is doing research on the restrictions placed on freedom of expression online by the Indian government and contribute studies, reports and policy briefs to feed into the ongoing debates at the national as well as international level. As part of the project we bring you the following outputs:

Blog Entries

ICANN reveals hitherto undisclosed details of domain names revenues (Geetha Hariharan; December 8, 2014).
Revolving Door Analysis: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (Lakshmi Venkataraman; December 10, 2014).
Is India's website-blocking law constitutional? - I. Law & procedure (Geetha Hariharan; December 11, 2014).

►Other

Participation in Event

National Seminar on Cyber Security & Cyber Laws - Issues and Concerns (Organized by the Advanced Centre for Research, Development & Training in Cyber Laws & Forensics; National Law School of India University, Bangalore; December 27 - 28, 2014). Sharath Chandra Ram was part of a plenary session on "Multi-Disciplinary Challenges in Ensuring Cyber Security".

Blog Entries

Overview of the Constitutional Challenges to the IT Act (Pranesh Prakash; December 15, 2014).
Reply to RTI filed with BSNL regarding Network Neutrality and Throttling (Tarun Krishnakumar; December 22, 2014).

---------------------------------
News & Media Coverage
---------------------------------
CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

India sees biggest improvement in Internet freedom, says report (Moulishree Srivastava; Livemint; December 5, 2014).
Are Cab Apps safe? (IBN Live; December 8, 2014).
FrndiNeed; an app for passengers' safety (Athira A. Nair; Economic Times; December 10, 2014).
Thank You To Our 2014 Sponsors (Medianama; December 22, 2014).
Why did India fail to discover the ISIS Twitter handle? (Anita Babu; Business Standard; December 26, 2014).
Targeting surveillance (Ajai Sreevatsan; The Hindu; December 28, 2014).
Centre blocks 32 websites for security reasons, restores some later (S. Ronendra Singh; Hindu Businessline; December 31, 2014).
DoT Reportedly Orders Blocking of 32 Websites Including GitHub, Archive.org, SourceForge (NDTV; December 31, 2014).
Govt blocks 32 websites, including Vimeo and Github (Moulishree Srivastava; Livemint; December 31, 2014).
Vimeo, DailyMotion, Pastebin Among Sites Blocked In India For 'Anti-India' Content From ISIS (Jeff Stone; IB Times; December 31, 2014).
Pastebin, Dailymotion, Github blocked after DoT order: Report (Anupam Saxena; The Times of India; December 31, 2014).

Telecom

CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

Newspaper Column

A Road Map for Digital India (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard; December 3, 2014 and Organizing India Blogspot; December 4, 2014).

Digital Humanities

CIS is building research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Digital will be used as a way of unpacking the debates in humanities and social sciences and look at the new frameworks, concepts and ideas that emerge in our engagement with the digital. The clusters aim to produce and document new conversations and debates that shape the contours of Digital Humanities in Asia:

Blog Entry

The Spaces of Digital (P.P.Sneha; December 30, 2014).

About CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
Visit us at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge
E-mail: a2k@cis-india.org

► Support Us

Please help us defend consumer / citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of 'The Centre for Internet and Society' and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 5600 71.

► Request for Collaboration:

We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/december-2014-bulletin

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

praskrishna — 2014-12-31T02:04:37Z

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

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

PROGRAMME SCHEDULE

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

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

Indians Plead for #NetNeutrality as Airtel Raises Data Charges

subha — 2015-02-11T15:10:44Z

Click to read the article published in the Global Voices on December 30, 2014.

After Indian mobile data service provider Airtel announced plans to introduce data charges for VoIP usage, it received a rash of criticism from customers and open web advocates alike.

With 192.22 million users (as of August 2013), Airtel is India's largest mobile telephony provider and Asia-Pacific's second largest mobile operator. Although plans are now on hold due to regulatory restrictions, advocates worry that the company may yet find a way impose the fee increase.

On December 26, company proposed to raise costs for mobile phone users who rely on services like WhatsApp, Skype, and Viber to communicate with their contacts, requiring them to pay Rs.0.04/10KB (0.063 USD, based on current conversion rate) for 3G and Rs. 0.10/10KB (0.158 USD) for 2G service where a local or national call will cost one third of this amount or less.

If you pay a fixed amount for internet data pack, Airtel will charge you extra for internet calls on Skype, Viber or any free calling app. How much? 4 paise for every 10 Kilo Bytes on 3G and 10 paise for every 10 Kilo Bytes on 2G.

- Netneutrality.in

The new plan to charge Rs. 75 for 75 MB of data usage over VoIP calls was heavily criticized on social media:

So let me get this straight. Airtel is worried about people using a mere 75 MB out of their data allowance? WTF? #BoycottAirtel

— Madhu Menon (@madmanweb) December 26, 2014

Messages against Airtel on Twitter and Facebook included hashtags such as #BoycottAirtel and #NetNeutrality.

In protest of Airtel India's violation of net neutrality principles, I disabled all data packs in my mobile number .

I am not using skype or viber usually . My usual video requirements arechatb.org and Google hangout. But a carrier breaking net neutrality is a very serious development . Raise your voice against this .

Read More about Airtel Breaking Net Neutrality here http://netneutrality.in/

I would like to port to some other services without gate keeping after a few weeks If airtel continues same path.

‪#‎netneutrality‬ ‪#‎india‬ ‪#‎airtel‬ ‪#‎fail‬

- Anivar Joshina (on Facebook)

In an op-ed, Indian online news portal Niti Central's CEO Shashi Shekhar said the move could put Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's “Digital India” initiative in jeopardy.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of a Digital India will be in jeopardy unless the larger mess in Telecom is fixed urgently on priority and “Net Neutrality” does not make that priority list.

- Shashi Shekhar, CEO, Niti Central

Airtel has not released any further response on the issue of net neutrality since their initial announcement, which read as follows:

All Internet/data packs or plans (through which customer can avail discounted rate) shall only be valid for internet browsing and will exclude VoIP (Both incoming/ Outgoing). VoIP over data connectivity would be charged at standard data rates of 4p / 10 KB (3G service) and 10p / 10 KB (2G service).

- Published on Telecomtalk.info

Reacting to the public outcry against Airtel, India's Union Minister of Communications Ravi Shankar Prasad pledged to look into matter. According to news portal First Post, telecom operators voiced opposition to “over-the-top” VoIP services like WhatsApp, Skype, and Viber for some time, but the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has thus far stood in the way of a price increase.

Airtel has started on plans to charge OTT users particularly using VOIP services like viber and skype. TRAI had earlier this year rejected such demands from Indian operators. Even after this Airtel has gone ahead and kickstarted this practice.

- Sandip Pillai (on Change.org)

Airtel has pushed for a policy level change to legitimize exceptional data charges and many other over-the-top services. But these were declined by TRAI who contended that Airtel's plans were “illegal and violation of net neutrality,” forcing Airtel to drop the plan — for now.

In view of the news reports that a consultation paper will be issued shortly by TRAI on issues relating to services offered by OTT players including VOIP, we have decided not to implement our proposed launch of VoIP packs.

We have no doubt that as a result of the consultation process a balanced outcome would emerge that would not only protect the interests of all stakeholders and viability of this important sector but would also encourage much needed investments in spectrum and roll out of data networks to fulfill the objective of digital India.

- Reported on MediaNama by Nikhil Pahwa

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/global-voices-december-30-2014-indians-plead-for-net-neutrality-as-aitel-raises-data-charges

Relationship Between Privacy and Confidentiality

vipul — 2014-12-30T14:27:02Z

The laws of breach of confidentiality and breach of privacy at first glance seem very similar to each other. If a doctor releases health information relating to a patient that s/he is treating then such an act would give rise to a claim both under the law of privacy as well as under the law of confidentiality.

Similar is the case with financial information released by a bank, etc. This makes one wonder exactly where and how it is that the law of breach of privacy intersects with that of the law of confidentiality. An enquiry into such a complex question of law requires a deeper appreciation of the relationship between these two different principles of law which require a better understanding of the origins and evolutions of these principles.

In this paper we shall try to explore the origins of both the law of privacy as well as confidentiality as they have evolved in the field of tort law in India. Although our primary focus is Indian law, however in order to understand the evolution of these principles it is necessary to discuss their evolution in three common law jurisdictions, viz. the United States of America, the United Kingdom and India. The reason for an analysis of these three jurisdictions will become clear as the reader goes further into this paper, however for ease of reference it would be better if the reason is clarified here itself. The concept of a right against breach of confidentiality has existed in English common law for a very long time, however the concept of a claim for breach of privacy originated only in American law, other than some statutory protection granted in the last couple of decades, has still not been granted recognition in English common law.

After a discussion of the evolution of these principles in both American and English law, we will then discuss these principles as they exist in Indian law. This discussion will (or should) at once become easier to understand and digest because of the deeper understanding of the interplay between these two principles gained from a reading of the first two chapters.

Privacy Torts: American Origins

Looking at the origins of privacy law it has been argued by many academics that the law of privacy in common law has its origins in an article published by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandies in the Harvard Law Review in 1890.[1] Warren and Brandeis suggested that one could generalise certain cases on defamation, breach of copyright in unpublished letters, trade secrets and breach of confidence as all based upon the protection of a common value which they called privacy.[2] The authors relied upon the existing body of cases relating to the law of confidentiality and interpreted it in a way so as to create a "right to privacy" which has evolved into a right quite different from the common understanding of confidentiality.

Although there are certain criticisms of the article by Warren and Brandeis, the background in which the article was written and the lacuna that these two scholars were trying to fill in the law of confidentiality as it existed at that time gives some context to the reasons why they felt the need to move away from the existing principles and propose a new principle of law. Samuel Warren and Louis Brandies were both worried about the invasion of personal space by the advent of the news and print media which was experiencing a boom during the late 19^th century. [3] Warren and Brandeis were worried that although the existing body of law on confidentiality would protect a person from having their picture put on a postcard by their photographer without their consent,[4] however if there was no relationship between the two persons there would be no remedy available to the aggrieved party. [5]

One of the criticisms of Warren and Brandeis' article is that to propose the existence of a right to privacy they relied heavily on the English case of Prince Albert v. Strange[6]. It has been proposed by some academics that this was a case which dealt with confidentiality and literary property which was characterized by Warren and Brandeis as a privacy case. [7] In this case Prince Albert sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and lists of works which were made by Queen Victoria. The etchings appeared to have been removed surreptitiously from the private printer to whom these etchings were given and came into the possession of one Mr. Strange who wanted to print and sell the etchings. The case specifically rejected the existence of a right to privacy in the following words:

"The case is not put by the Plaintiff on any principle of trust or contract, but on property; there is nothing to show contract or confidence. It cannot be maintained that privacy constitutes property, or that the Court will interfere to protect the owner in the enjoyment of it; Chadler v. Thompson (3 Camp. 80). In William Aldred's case (9 Rep. 58 b.), Wray C. J. said, "The law does not give an action for such things of delight"."

Infact the case mentioned the term "privacy" only once, but that statement was made in the context of whether a delay in granting an injunction in such cases would defeat the entire purpose of the suit and was not preceeded or followed by any discussion on a distinct right to privacy:

"In the present case, where privacy is the right invaded, postponing the injunction would be equivalent to denying it altogether. The interposition of this Court in these cases does not depend upon any legal right, and to be effectual, it must be immediate."

However, Warren and Brandeis interpreted this case in a different manner and came to the conclusion that the "principle which protects personal writings and all other personal productions, not against theft and physical appropriation, but against publication in any form, is in reality not the principle of private property, but that of an inviolate personality".[8]

The article further incorporated the language of Judge Cooley's treatise (Cooley on Torts)[9] which used the phrase "the right to be let alone". They said that identifying this common element should enable the courts to declare the existence of a general principle which protected a person's appearance, sayings, acts and personal relations from being exposed in public. [10] However it has been argued by some scholars that this phrase was not used by Judge Cooley with as much import as has been given by Warren and Brandeis in their article. The phrase was used by Judge Cooley in mere passing while discussing why tort law protected against not only batteries but also assaults with no physical contact, and had no connection with privacy rights. [11]

Warren and Brandeis' article started getting almost immediate attention and some amount of recognition from various quarters,[12] though it cannot be said that it was universally well received. [13] However over time this tort of privacy slowly started getting recognized by various Courts throughout the United States and got a huge boost when it was recognized in a brief section in the First Restatement of Torts published in 1939. The right to privacy in American jurisprudence got another boost and became fully entrenched later on specially with the endorsement of Dr. William Prosser who discussed privacy in his treatise on the law of torts, the subsequent editions of which had a more and more elaborate discussion of the tort of privacy. This development of the law was further enhanced by Dr. Prosser's position as a reporter of the Second Restatement of Torts, which imported a four part taxonomy of the privacy tort which had been suggested by Dr. Prosser in his previous works.[14]

Thus we see how, beginning with the article by Warren and Brandeis in 1890, the privacy tort in American jurisprudence developed over the years and became further entrenched due to the influence of William Prosser and his works on the tort of privacy.

Privacy Torts in England: An Elaborate Principle of Confidentiality

The law of confidentiality in English law, as applied in certain specific contexts such as attorney client privileges, [15] doctor patient confidentiality,[16] etc. has been applied since hundreds and even though cases relating to the breach of confidentiality had already existed, however the case of Prince Albert v. Strange,[17] be it due to the interesting facts or the fame of the parties involved, is still considered as the clearest and most well established precedent for the tort of breach of confidence.[18] Similar cases relying upon this tort kept being decided by the English Courts but the tort of confidentiality was further cemented in English common law by the case of Saltman Engineering Co. v. Campbell Engineering Co.,[19] which expanded the application of the principle by holding that the obligation to respect confidence is not limited to only instances where parties have a contractual relationship.

The seminal case on the tort of breach of confidentiality in English law was that of Coco v. A.N Clark (Engineers) Ltd., [20] where an inventor enjoined a moped manufacturer from using design ideas communicated by the inventor during failed contractual negotiations with the manufacturer.[21] In this case Megarry J., held that a case of breach of confidence normally requires three elements to succeed, apart from contract, (i) the information itself must have the necessary quality of confidence about it, (ii) that information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and (iii) there must be an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it.

Relying on the principles enunciated in the above cases and developed by subsequent decisions, English law relating to the tort of breach of confidentiality developed into a robust and flexible body of law protecting personal and commercial information from disclosure. Infact by the late 1990s, English law was very broad and gradually expanding in its scope of the tort of breach of confidentiality and Courts had stretched the idea of an obligation of confidence so as to include cases where there was not even any communication between the parties, such as secret photography and wiretapping. Further since third parties had already been reposed with an obligation of confidence when they knowingly received confidential material even if they did not have any relationship with the plaintiff, therefore the law of confidence could be extended to parties outside the relationship in which the confidence was initially made. This, although was not as broad and overarching as the American privacy tort, still had the ability to cover a wide range of cases. [22]

While English Courts on the one hand kept trying to expand the scope of the confidentiality tort, they also categorically rejected the existence of a privacy tort on the lines developed under American jurisprudence. The suggestion of the existence of such a privacy tort in English law was most recently rejected by the House of Lords in the case of Wainwright v. Home Office,[23] by Lord Bingham in the following words:

"What the courts have so far refused to do is to formulate a general principle of "invasion of privacy" (I use the quotation marks to signify doubt about what in such a context the expression would mean) from which the conditions of liability in the particular case can be deduced."

In this case the plaintiffs made a claim against the prison authorities for strip searching them before they went to meet an inmate and since the incident occurred before the coming into force of the Human Rights Act, 1998 of the UK had not yet come into force, so the plaintiffs also argued that there was an existing tortuous remedy based on a breach of privacy in common law. While discussing whether English Courts were amenable to or had ever recognized such a common law tort of privacy, the House of Lords cited decisions such as Malone v Metropolitan Police Comr, [24] and R v Khan (Sultan),[25] in both of which the courts refused to recognize a general right to privacy in the context of tapping of telephones.

The absence of any general cause of action for invasion of privacy was also acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in the context of a newspaper reporter and photographer invading into a patient's hospital bedroom in an effort to purportedly interview him and taking photographs, in the case of Kaye v Robertson.[26]

Thus relying on the above line of cases the House of Lords concluded that a general right to privacy does not exist in English common law:

"All three judgments are flat against a judicial power to declare the existence of a high-level right to privacy and I do not think that they suggest that the courts should do so. The members of the Court of Appeal certainly thought that it would be desirable if there was legislation to confer a right to protect the privacy of a person in the position of Mr Kaye against the kind of intrusion which he suffered, but they did not advocate any wider principle."

Thus it is clear that English Courts have time and again denied the existence of an American style right to privacy as emanating from common law. The Courts have instead tried to expand and widen the scope of the tort of confidentiality so as to cover various situations which may arise due to the pervasiveness of technology and which the traditional interpretation of the law of confidentiality was not equipped to deal with.

Therefore it is now a little clearer that the reason for the existence of the confusion between the torts of privacy and confidentiality is that the right to privacy had its origins in the common law precedents but the right to privacy developed as a distinct and separate right in America, primarily due to the influence of Warren and Brandeis's article as well as the works of William Prosser, whereas the Courts in England did not adopt this principle of privacy and instead favored a much more elaborate right to confidentiality. In the Indian context, this has led to some amount of confusion because, Indian case laws, as will be seen in the following chapter, borrowed heavily from American jurisprudence when discussing the right to privacy and not all cases have been able to clearly bring out the difference between the principles of privacy and confidentiality.

Indian Law

Tort of Breach of Privacy

Any analysis of the right to privacy in India, be it in the realm of constitutional law or tort law almost always includes within its ambit a discussion of the two celebrated cases of Kharak Singh v. Union of India[27] and Govind v. State of M.P.,[28] which elevated the right to privacy to the pedestal of a fundamental right under Indian law. However, an unintended consequence of this has been that pretty much every commentator on Indian law includes a discussion of these two cases when discussing the right to privacy, be it under constitutional law or under tort law. However, there is one problem with such an analysis of the right to privacy, viz. these two cases were dealing with a pure constitutional law question and relied upon American case laws to read into Article 21 an inbuilt right to privacy. However from a strictly tort law perspective, these cases are not relevant at all, and the seminal case for the tort of breach of privacy would have to be the Apex Court decision in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, [29] which specifically recognized this distinction and stated that the right to privacy has two different aspects, (i) the constitutional right to privacy, and (ii) the common law right to privacy.

The facts of the R. Rajagopal case revolve around the publishing of the autobiography written by the prisoner Auto Shankar, who had been placed in jail for committing multiple murders. The autobiography contained proof of involvement of many IAS, IPS officers in his crimes. Although Shankar had initially requested that the magazine print his autobiography, he later requested that his story not be published. The publishers held that it was their right to publish the autobiography while the IPS and IAS officers on the other hand claimed that Auto Shankar was trying to defame them and wanted to ban its publication. The Supreme Court in this case, implicitly accepts the existence of a right to privacy under Indian tort law when

"21.The question is how far the principles emerging from the United States and English decisions are relevant under our constitutional system. So far as the freedom of press is concerned, it flows from the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). But the said right is subject to reasonable restrictions placed thereon by an existing law or a law made after the commencement of the Constitution in the interests of or in relation to the several matters set out therein. Decency and defamation are two of the grounds mentioned in clause (2). Law of torts providing for damages for invasion of the right to privacy and defamation and Sections 499/500 IPC are the existing laws saved under clause (2). "

Discussing the distinction between the two aspects of the right to privacy, the Court held:

"The right to privacy as an independent and distinctive concept originated in the field of Tort law, under which a new cause of action for damages resulting from unlawful invasion of privacy was recognized. This right has two aspects which are but two faces of the same coin (1) the general law of privacy which affords a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and (2) the constitutional recognition given to the right to privacy which protects personal privacy against unlawful governmental invasion. The first aspect of this right must be said to have been violated where, for example, a person's name or likeness is used, without his consent, for advertising or non-advertising purposes or for that matter, his life story is written whether laudatory or otherwise and published without his consent as explained hereinafter. In recent times, however, this right has acquired a constitutional status."

After a discussion of the various arguments presented by the parties (a number of which are not relevant for the purposes of this paper), the Supreme Court laid down the following principles regarding freedom of the press and the right to privacy:

(1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.

(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency [Article 19(2)] an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being publicised in press/media.

(3) There is yet another exception to the rule in (1) above - indeed, this is not an exception but an independent rule. In the case of public officials, it is obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter, the remedy of action for damages is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. This is so even where the publication is based upon facts and statements which are not true, unless the official establishes that the publication was made (by the defendant) with reckless disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be enough for the defendant (member of the press or media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; it is not necessary for him to prove that what he has written is true. Of course, where the publication is proved to be false and actuated by malice or personal animosity, the defendant would have no defence and would be liable for damages. It is equally obvious that in matters not relevant to the discharge of his duties, the public official enjoys the same protection as any other citizen, as explained in (1) and (2) above. It needs no reiteration that judiciary, which is protected by the power to punish for contempt of court and Parliament and legislatures protected as their privileges are by Articles 105 and 104 respectively of the Constitution of India, represent exceptions to this rule."

The above principles have ruled the roost on the issue of privacy and freedom of the press under Indian law, with certain minimal additions. It has been held by the Delhi High Court that even though a claim for damages may be made under tort law for breach of privacy, the Court may even grant a pre-publication injunction to prevent a breach of privacy.[30] The principles laid down inR. Rajagopal were further clarified in the case of Indu Jain v. Forbes Incorporated, [31] where a case was filed by Indu Jain in the Delhi High Court to stop Forbes magazine from featuring her family in the Forbes List of Indian Billionaires. After a discussion of the various authorities and cases on the issue the Court summarized the principles relating to privacy and freedom of the press and applying those principles rejected the claim of the plaintiff. However for the purposes of our discussion these principles are extremely useful, and have been listed below:

"(V) Public or general interest in the matter published has to be more than mere idle curiosity.

(VI) Public figures like public officials play an influential role in ordering society. They have access to mass media communication both to influence the policy and to counter-criticism of their views and activities. The citizen has a legitimate and substantial interest in the conduct of such persons and the freedom of press extends to engaging in uninhibited debate about the involvement of public figures in public issues and events. (Ref. (1994) 6 SCC 632 R. Rajagopal & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others Para 18).

(VII) Right to privacy that rests in an individual may be waived by him by express or implied consent or lost by a course of conduct which estops its assertions. Such implication may be deduced from the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances.

(VIII) A public person or personage is one who by his standing, accomplishment, fame, mode of life or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, affairs and character has so become a public figure and thereby relinquishes at least a part of his privacy.

(IX) The standard to be adopted for assessing as to whether the published material infracts the right to privacy of any individual is that of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence and not an out of ordinary or hyper-sensitive man. (Ref. (2007) 1 SCC 143 Ajay Goswami v. UOI & Ors.).

(X) Even though in this country, the freedom of press does not have presumptive priority as in some other jurisdictions including the United States of America, however the importance of a free media of communication to a healthy democracy has to receive sufficient importance and emphasis.

(XI) In evaluating a relief to be granted in respect of a complaint against infraction of the right to privacy, the court has to balance the rights of the persons complaining of infraction of right to privacy against freedom of press and the right of public to disclosure of newsworthy information. Such consideration may entail the interest of the community and the court has to balance the proportionality of interfering with one right against the proportionality of impact by infraction of the other.

(XII) The publication has to be judged as a whole and news items, advertisements and published matter cannot be read without the accompanying message that is purported to be conveyed to public. Pre-publication censorship may not be countenanced in the scheme of the constitutional framework unless it is established that the publication has been made with reckless disregard for truth, publication shall not be normally prohibited. (Ref.: (2007) 1 SCC 143 Ajay Goswami Vs. UOI & Ors.; (1994) 6 SCC 632 R. Rajagopal & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others and AIR 2002 Delhi 58 Khushwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Maneka Gandhi)."

Thus we see that the right to privacy in Indian law, even in the realm of tort law has had an inextricable connection with constitutional principles and constitutional cases have had a very huge impact on the development of this right in India. However a perusal of these cases shows that the right to privacy is available only insofar as information which is personal in nature, however in situations where the information is non-personal in nature the right to privacy may not be as useful and this is where, as we shall see below, the tort of breach of confidentiality comes in to fill the void.

Tort of Breach of Confidentiality

While there have been a number of landmark cases in India on the issue of breach of confidence in a contractual or a statutory setting, these cases are not very relevant for a discussion on the tort of breach of confidentiality. This is not to say that the tort of breach of confidentiality is non-existent in Indian law, the Courts here have time and again accepted that there does exist such a tortuous remedy in certain situations. We shall now try to examine the contours of this principle of torts by discussing some of the landmark cases on the topic.

In the case of Petronet LNG Ltd. v. Indian Petro Group and Another, ^{^[32]} the Delhi High Court considered a claim by a corporation seeking to prevent a news and media group from reporting its confidential negotiations and contracts with counterparties. The claim was based upon both the right to privacy as well as the right to confidentiality but in this case the court, looking at the fact that the plaintiff was a corporation and also the type of information involved denied the claim on the right to privacy. However, it did allow the injunction claimed by the corporation based on the right to confidentiality. Summarizing its discussion of the right to confidentiality, the Court stated thus:

"49. It may be seen from the above discussion, that originally, the law recognized relationships- either through status (marriage) or arising from contract (such as employment, contract for services etc) as imposing duties of confidentiality. The decision in Coco (1969) marked a shift, though imperceptibly, to a possibly wider area or zone. Douglas noted the paradigm shift in the perception, with the enactment of the Human Rights Act; even before that, in Attorney General (2) (also called the Spycatcher case, or the Guardian case) the Court acknowledged that there could be situations -where a third party (likened to a passerby, coming across sensitive information, wafting from the top of a building, below) being obliged to maintain confidentiality, having regard to the nature and sensitivity of the information….."

While discussing the factors that the Court would have to consider while deciding a claim based on the breach of confidentiality, the Delhi High Court relied upon and quoted from English judgments as follows:

"50. Even while recognizing the wider nature of duty - in the light of the Human Rights Act, 1998, and Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention, it was cautioned that the court, in each case, where breach of confidentiality, is complained, and even found- has to engage in a balancing process; the factors to be weighed while doing so, were reflected in A v. B Plc [2003] QB 195; the latest judgment in H.R.H. Prince of Wales indicates that the court would look at the kind of information, the nature of relationship, etc, and also consider proportionality, while weighing whether relief could be given:

"The court will need to consider whether, having regard to the nature of the information and all the relevant circumstances, it is legitimate for the owner of the information to seek to keep it confidential or whether it is in the public interest that the information should be made public….

..In applying the test of proportionality, the nature of the relationship that gives rise to the duty of confidentiality may be important."

Holding that the principles discussed in the English cases given in the context of individual rights of confidentiality would also hold good in the case of corporations, the Court held that:

"51. Though the reported cases, discussed above, all dealt with individual right, to confidentiality of private information (Duchess of Argyll;Frazer; Douglas; Campbell and H.R.H. Prince of Wales) yet, the formulations consciously approved in the Guardian, and Campbell, embrace a wider zone of confidentiality, that can possibly be asserted. For instance, professional records of doctors regarding treatment of patients, ailments of individuals, particulars, statements of witnesses deposing in investigations into certain types of crimes, particulars of even accused who are facing investigative processes, details victims of heinous assaults and crimes, etc, may, be construed as confidential information, which, if revealed, may have untoward consequences, casting a corresponding duty on the person who gets such information - either through effort, or unwittingly, not to reveal it. Similarly, in the cases of corporations and businesses, there could be legitimate concerns about its internal processes and trade secrets, marketing strategies which are in their nascent stages, pricing policies and so on, which, if prematurely made public, could result in irreversible, and unknown commercial consequences. However, what should be the approach of the court when the aggrieved party approaches it for relief, would depend on the facts of each case, the nature of the information, the corresponding content of the duty, and the balancing exercise to be carried out. It is held, therefore, that even though the plaintiff cannot rely on privacy, its suit is maintainable, as it can assert confidentiality in its information."

Apart from privacy, the law of confidentiality has been used in cases where there has been a definite harm to one side but none of the other laws provide for any relief. This was the situation in the case of Zee Telefilms Limited v. Sundial Communications Pvt Ltd, [33] where a company which developed television and media programming had discussed their concept of a new show with a network during negotiations which could not be finalized. The network however subsequently tried to start a new show which was based on the same concept and idea as the one presented by the plaintiff company. The plaintiff sued the network, inter alia on a claim for breach of confidential information and asked that the network be prevented from airing its show. In this case the plaintiff's claim based on copyright was rejected because copyright only subsists on the expression of an idea and not the idea itself, therefore the tort of breach of confidentiality had to be resorted to in order to give relief to the plaintiffs. Discussing the difference between confidentiality and copyright, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held:

"10. The law of the confidence is different from law of copyright. In paragraph 21.2 (page 721), [of Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright (13th Edn.)] the learned author has pointed out that right to restrain publication of work upon the grounds, that to do so would be breach of trust of confidence, is a broader right than proprietary right of copyright. There can be no copyright of ideas or information and it is not infringement of copyright to adopt or appropriate ideas of another or to publish information received from another, provided there is no substantial copying of the form in which those ideas have, or that information has, been previously embodied. But if the ideas or information have been acquired by a person under such circumstances that it would be a breach of good faith to publish them and he has no just case or excuses for doing so, the court may grant injunction against him. The distinction between the copyright and confidence may be of considerable importance with regard to unpublished manuscripts / works submitted, and not accepted, for publication or use. Whereas copyright protects material that has been reduced to permanent form, the general law of confidence may protect either written or oral confidential communication. Copyright is good against the world generally while confidence operates against those who receive information or ideas in confidence. Copyright has a fixed statutory time limit which does not apply to confidential information, though in practice application of confidence usually ceases when the information or ideas becomes public knowledge. Further the obligation of confidence rests not only on the original recipient, but also on any person who received the information with knowledge acquired at the time or subsequently that it was originally given in confidence."

A similar view, in a similar fact situation Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court had also came to a similar conclusion in the case of Anil Gupta v. Kunal Das Gupta.[34]

The law of confidentiality has also come to the rescue of employers in attempting to prevent important business and client information from being taken or copied by the employees for their personal gain. In the case of Mr. Diljeet Titus, Advocate v. Mr. Alfred A. Adebare, [35] the Delhi High Court had to decide a claim based on breach of confidentiality when some ex-employees of a law firm tried to take away client lists and drafts of legal agreements and opinions from their earlier employer-law firm. Discussing the importance of preventing employees or former employees from away which such actions, the Court held as follows:

"81. I am in full agreement with the views expressed in Margaret, Duchess of Argyll (Feme Sole) v. Duke of Argyll and Ors. (1965) 1 All ER 611, that a Court must step in to restrain a breach of confidence independent of any right under law. Such an obligation need not be expressed but be implied and the breach of such confidence is independent of any other right as stated above. The obligation of confidence between an advocate and the client can hardly be re-emphasised. Section 16 of the Copyright Act itself emphasizes the aspect of confidentiality de hors even the rights under the Copyright Act. If the defendants are permitted to do what they have done it would shake the very confidence of relationship between the advocates and the trust imposed by clients in their advocates. The actions of the defendants cause injury to the plaintiff and as observed by Aristotle: 'It makes no difference whether a good man defrauds a bad one, nor whether a man who commits an adultery be a good or a bad man; the law looks only to the difference created by the injury."

The Court allowed the claim of the law firm holding that the relationship between a law firm and its attorneys is of a nature where information passed between them would be covered by the law of confidence and would not be allowed to be copied or used by the attorneys for their individual gain.

Recently, in 2009, the principles relating to breach of confidentiality under Indian law were very succinctly summarized by the Bombay High Court in the case of Urmi Juvekar Chiang v. Global Broadcasting News Limited,[36] where in a fact situation similar to the ones in Zee Telefilms case and the Anil Gupta case, the Court discussed a number of previous cases on breach of confidentiality and laid down the following principles:

"8. The principles on which the action of breach of confidence can succeed, have been culled out as

(i) he (Plaintiff) had to identify clearly what was the information he was relying on;

(ii) he (Plaintiff) had to show that it was handed over in the circumstances of confidence;

(iii) he (Plaintiff) had to show that it was information of the type which could be treated as

confidential; and

(iv) he (Plaintiff) had to show that it was used without licence or there was threat to use it…… It is further noted that at interlocutory stage, the Plaintiff does not have to prove (iii) and (iv) referred to above, as he will at the trial. But the Plaintiff must address them and show that he has atleast seriously arguable case in relation to each of them."

From the above discussion on Indian law it is clear that the Courts in India have tried to incorporate the best of both worlds, in the sense that it has taken and adopted the principle of a right to privacy, a breach of which would give rise to an action in torts, from American jurisprudence while rejecting the stand taken by English Courts in rejecting such a right to privacy. However, Indian Courts have often referred to the decisions given by English Courts as well as American Courts in interpreting the principle of the right to confidentiality. Therefore on an overall examination it would appear that insofar as the rights to privacy and confidentiality are concerned, Indian jurisprudence has more in common with American law rather than English law.

Conclusion

The law of privacy does not seem to have existed as a recognizable principle of law before it was propounded in the article by Warren and Brandeis in the Harvard Law Review in 1890. It slowly gained traction in American jurisprudence over the twentieth century but was rejected outright by the Courts in England, which preferred to follow the principle of confidentiality rather than privacy and tried to expand that old principle to fit newer and newer situations. Since Indian law borrows heavily from English law and to a smaller extent also from American law, the Courts in India have accepted both, the principle of a right to privacy as well as a right to confidentiality. This is not to say that the Courts in America do not recognize a right to confidentiality and only accept a right to privacy. Infact American Courts, just like their Indian counterparts, recognize both a right to confidentiality as well as a right to privacy.

Since Indian courts accept both the concept of breach of privacy as well as breach of confidentiality, one should not try to figure out if a particular circumstance is more appropriate for the one over the other, but actually use both principles to supplement one another for achieving the same objective. For example in situations where the conditions required for the application of the law of confidentiality do not exist such as disclosure of personal information by a person who did not receive it in a confidential capacity, one could apply the principle of privacy to prevent such information being disclosed or claim a remedy after disclosure. On the other hand if the information to be disclosed is not of a personal nature then one could try to utilize the law of confidentiality to prevent disclosure or claim damages.

[1] Harry Kalven, Jr., Privacy in Tort Law-Were Warren and Brandeis Wrong?, "31 Law & Contemp. Problems". 326, 327 (1966). Elbridge L. Adams, The Right of Privacy, and Its Relation to the Law of Libel, 39 AM. L. REV. 37 (1905).

[2] Wainwright v. Home Office, 2003 UKHL 53.

[3] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, "96 Georgetown Law Journal", 123 at 128 and 132 (2007).

[4] Pollard v. Photographic Co., (1888) 40 Ch. D. 345.

[5] It is also said that this concern arose out of the personal experience of Samuel Warren, whose wedding announcement as well as the report on his sister-in-law's death in the newspapers did not go down well with him. http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/380/380powerpoint/privacy.pdf

[6] (1848) 41 Eng. Rep. 1171 (Ch.).

[7] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, "96 Georgetown Law Journal", 123 (2007).

[8] Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, "4 Harvard Law Review", 193 at 207 (1890).

[9] Thomas M. Cooley, The Law Of Torts, 2^nd Ed., 1888, p. 29.

[10] Wainwright v. Home Office, 2003 UKHL 53.

[11] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, "96 Georgetown Law Journal", 123 (2007).

[12] As early as in 1891, the case of Schuyler v. Curtis, 45 NYS 787 (Sup. Ct., 1891) involving the erection of a statue of a dead person, recognized the principle proposed in Warren and Brandeis' article.

[13] Most famously the case of Robertson v. Rochester folding Box Co., 64 NE 442 (NY 1902) where the New York Court of appeals specifically rejected a the existence of a right to privacy as proposed by Warren and Brandeis.

[14] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, "96 Georgetown Law Journal", 123 (2007).

[15] Bredd v. Lovelace, (1577) 21 Eng. Rep. 33 (Ch.)

[16] For doctor patient confidentiality we need look no further than the Hippocratic Oath itself which states "Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret".

[17] (1848) 41 Eng. Rep. 1171 (Ch.).

[18] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, 96 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 123 (2007).

[19] [1948] 65 RPC 203.

[20] [1969] RPC 41 (UK).

[21] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, 96 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 123 (2007).

[22] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, 96 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 123 (2007).

[23] 2003 UKHL 53.

[24] [1979] Ch 344.

[25] [1997] AC 558.

[26] [1991] FSR 62

[27] http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=3641 .

[28] http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=6014 .