We are anonymous, we are legion

India partially lifts Porn Ban?

praskrishna — 2015-09-20T06:30:34Z

India is said to have partially removed the porn ban. But many internet service providers have refused to restore access, due to a 'vague' government order.

The blog post by Nazhat Khan was published in DESI blitz on August 7, 2015.

India has partially lifted the ban of online pornography, just days after blocking user access to 857 adult websites.

The Indian government enforced the ban on July 30, 2015, only to reverse its decision on August 4, 2015. Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Communications and IT Minister, clarifies the ban only targets websites promoting child pornography.

He says: “A new notification will be issued shortly. The ban will be partially withdrawn. Sites that do not promote child porn will be unbanned.” Under the new order, internet service providers (ISPs) in India are allowed to unblock these 857 websites – except for those that contain child pornography.

This has caused another outrage. ISPs complain it is not within their capability and responsibility to do so. Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) explains: “ISPs have no way or mechanism to filter out child pornography from URLs, and the further unlimited sub-links.

“Hence, we request your good self to advise us immediately on the future course of action in this regard.

“Till your further directive, the ISPs are keeping the said 857 URLs disabled.”

An executive at an Indian ISP tells the Wall Street Journal: “How can we go ahead? What if something comes up tomorrow [on one of these sites], which has child porn, or something else?”

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, points out it is not right for the government to pass the ball over to private companies.

He says: “The onus cannot be put on the service providers. What the government is doing is inherently unfair, it is not what the law requires.” In effect, porn sites in India are still blocked. The Supreme Court and senior officials are yet to provide clearer directives for ISPs.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/desi-blitz-august-7-2015-nazhat-khan-india-partially-lifts-porn-ban

India No Haven For Net Freedom But It Did Not Oppose UN Move on Internet Rights

praskrishna — 2016-07-09T02:25:51Z

India hasn’t had the best record when it comes to Internet rights. The country regularly carries out Internet shutdowns under flimsy pretexts, is still fumbling when it comes to the drafting of a comprehensive privacy bill, and most recently came out with a geospatial information regulation bill that would establish ownership over all forms of location data.

The article by Anuj Srinivas was published in the Wire on July 6, 2016.

So, last week, when the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution on the “promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet”, it wasn’t surprising to see the wave of media criticism of the amendments that were proposed by countries such as China and Russia – and which were supported by India.

South Africa’s Mail & Guardian ran a story headlined “South Africa votes with China, Russia and India against Internet freedoms in UN resolution”. Private Internet Access’s headline was “These 17 Countries Don’t Believe that Freedom of Expression on the Internet is a Human Right”. Popular tech website The Verge noted that the resolution was opposed “by a minority of authoritarian regimes including Russia, China and Saudi Arabia, as well as democracies like South Africa and India. These nations called for the UN to delete a passage in the resolution that ‘condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to our dissemination of information online’.”

The Verge‘s report was followed up by a number of Indian publications including IndiaToday and Medianama – the latter incorrectly stating that the UNHRC resolution “recognised Internet usage as a basic human right – as well a host of other global publications.

The facts
There were two fundamental mistakes with some of these reports. Firstly, the resolution was adopted without vote (with oral revision) as noted by the UNHRC. Therefore, while there were a number of countries which co-sponsored the resolution and many that didn’t, it is completely wrong to state that India – as the Mail & Guardian reported – or any other country, voted against the resolution.

Secondly, as noted by the Centre for Internet and Society, none of the four amendments supported by India called for the deletion of a passage that condemned the prevention or disruption of Internet access and online information dissemination. Although it may fit neatly within India’s history of issuing Internet block orders, no country was opposed to this paragraph at the UNHRC forum (although many countries including India flout this clause in spirit back at home). No such amendment was proposed.

What then were these four amendments, which Article 19, an organisation that advocates freedom of expression, statedwould “substantially weaken the resolution”? Out of the four amendments (referred to as L85-88 in the UNHRC resolution), the first amendment (L85) – which sought to include a reference to fighting against the exploitation of children online – was withdrawn by Russia before it was considered by member states.

The other three amendments, while not completely endorsed by the countries that co-sponsored the resolution, do carry a certain level of nuance. Only one of the amendments (L86) can truly be described as diluting language regarding freedom of expression online, although this could have been potentially a result of procedural politics.

L88: Including Reference to Hate Speech
This amendment – proposed by Belarus, China, Iran and the Russian Federation – asks to introduce a new paragraph that states:

“Expresses its concern at the use of the Internet and information and communications technology to disseminate ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, and incitement to racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

Article 19 says of this amendment that it would “undermine the intended focus of the draft resolution on protecting human rights online, in particular freedom of expression..” While it is true that a few paragraphs of the resolution’s preamble include a reference to hate speech, it is difficult to see what harm this amendment would have brought in and even more difficult to accept that it would dilute the focus of the overall resolution.

Using the Internet and other online media technologies for incitement and as a means of propagating intolerance and xenophobia is a very real problem in India and other Asian countries, the most notable example of which was the role that social media played in the exodus of north-east Indian migrants from Bangalore four years ago. While shutdowns are obviously not the best way of dealing with this, it is important to acknowledge the role of the Internet as a medium in this aspect. In sum, this amendment certainly would not have diluted the resolution’s aim of promoting freedom of expression online.

L87: Human-Rights Approach
The second amendment replaces the term “human rights-based approach” with “comprehensive and integrated approach” in two paragraphs on expanding Internet access:

PP17: Stressing the importance of applying a comprehensive and integrated (human rights-based approach) in providing and expanding access to the Internet and for the Internet to be open, accessible and nurtured by multistakeholder participation,

OP5: Affirms also the importance of applying a comprehensive and integrated (human rights-based approach) in providing and in expanding access to Internet and requests all States to make efforts to bridge the many forms of digital divides..

This amendment was a little trickier. According to people involved in the country stakeholder discussions, whom The Wirespoke with, the aversion to a ‘human-rights’ approach towards expanding Internet access came as a result of China and Russia playing procedural politics. The language that was proposed in the amendment – “comprehensive and integrated” – while certainly not the strongest possible language that could have been used, would not have legally diluted the proposal to expand Internet access while maintaining an open and multistakeholder approach towards Internet governance.

Stepping back, what would a human rights-based approach in expanding Internet access look like? Would it include legitimising the act of zero-rating and the approval of schemes such as Facebook’s Free Basics? Both of which, incidentally, have been banned in India. While the proposed amendment certainly does not speak well of the motivations of China, Russia and India, the term is also vague enough that its mere removal doesn’t indicate a lack of support towards Internet freedom.

L88 – Right to privacy and removal of UDHR reference
This amendment, proposed by China and the Russian Federation, was more straightforward. In two paragraphs, it sought to add the specific term ‘right to privacy’, while in another paragraph it proposed removing reference to language from, and articles in, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Had the amendment been passed, the changes in the following paragraphs would have been made:

PP7: Noting that the exercise of human rights, in particular the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, on the Internet is an issue of increasing interest and importance as the rapid pace of technological development enables individuals all over the world to use new information and communication technologies,

OP15: Decides to continue its consideration of the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights, including the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, on the Internet and other information and communication technology, as well as of how the Internet can be an important tool for fostering citizen and civil society participation, for the realisation of development in every community and for exercising human rights, in accordance with its programme of work.

OP1: Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ~~which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice~~, and the right to privacy in accordance with articles 17 and 19 of the ~~Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the~~ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

On one hand, this amendment would have added specific reference to the right to privacy. That specific term doesn’t appear in the draft resolution, although there are a few references to privacy in general in the resolution’s preamble.

However, the addition of a ‘right to privacy’ is coupled with a watering down of clear references to the protection of freedom of expression. Cynical observers would rightly note that China and Russia are probably less concerned with online privacy and more irked with the clear support of freedom of expression “regardless of frontiers” and “in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”; which is probably why this particular proposed amendment combined both issues to improve its chances of passing. While there is little doubt that this amendment would have diluted the resolution’s focus on protecting freedom of expression, the alternative phrasing also doesn’t create legal loopholes that renders it useless. Moreover, it still contains reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially Article 19, which goes beyond Article 19 of the UDHR .

India, a guardian?
It would be naive and wrong to take a strong position either way. To state that the amendments supported by India are all antithetical to the spirit of the UNHRC resolution, as some have done, is simply incorrect. On the other hand, this doesn’t mean India, and even less, China and Russia, are guardians of Internet freedom.

The UNHRC resolution in its entirety is a fine document. While non-binding, it provides a foundation for claiming that the same rights people have offline “must also be protected online”. Other crucial sections state that governments “should ensure accountability for all human rights violations and abuses committed against persons for exercising their human rights online”, while condemning “measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online”.

While the amendments India supported may not wholly oppose this resolution, it is also true that successive Indian governments also do not have an admirable track-record of upholding the resolution’s aims. Freedom for online speech had to be reclaimed in the form of court judgements, with the current government still supporting regulations that would allow it clamp down on online freedom of expression. In certain states within the country, Internet shutdowns happen without public explanations or justifiable reasoning. Over the last four years, for instance, Jammu and Kashmir has lost 18 days of Internet access. While it may not have wholly opposed the UNHRC resolution, the country still has a ways to go in terms of Internet freedom.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-week-anuj-srinivas-july-6-2016-india-no-haven-for-net-freedom-but-did-not-oppose-un-move-on-internet-rights

India needs better cyber police

praskrishna — 2014-06-04T07:56:33Z

On Wednesday, one of the largest online shopping and auction portals, eBay, revealed that earlier this year, cybercriminals accessed details of 145 million of its customers.

The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in the Business Standard on May 23, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Even though eBay's customers' financial details are said to be safe, the incident is being termed a "historic breach" given the enormity of the data compromised. Globally, eBay is being criticised not just for its laxity in securing the digital perimeter but also for reacting too late. The company has said that it first came to know of the breach "two weeks" ago. Records that have been accessed contain passwords as well as email addresses, birth dates, mailing addresses and other personal information.

The situation is worse when it comes to reporting such instances in India, say cyber security experts. The Indian Information Technology Act requires companies to adopt "reasonable security measures" to protect consumers' sensitive personal information such as passwords and financial details. It also makes companies duty bound to report breaches and also defines liabilities in case a firm is found not to be adhering to best data security practices. However, implementation is patchy and most such instances go unreported.

Pavan Duggal, an advocate specialising in cyber security, says most users do not come to know if there has been a breach. "Awareness is also low among consumers about the legal recourse available in case their data has been compromised," he adds. Unlike in the West, lack of a proper data protection and privacy law in India is to be blamed for this. "Companies, too, are inclined not to report such instances as they fear being negatively impacted in the market," he points out.

In case of a breach, a user can contact the adjudicating officer, which is the state infotech secretary, for legal recourse. However, the onus is on the user to prove the breach. In the US, a consumer can get a subpoena (court order) issued against a company that makes it duty bound to provide details of the breach. "In India, the regime is too lax. It is very difficult to notify the government," says Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society.

"There are stringent compliance requirements in countries such as the US. The laws in India need to come tougher if we want companies to become more serious about this," adds Duggal.

eBay has advised consumers, many of whom could be Indians, to immediately change their passwords. While people tend to use the same password across many sites, emails and phones numbers act as verifying tools for several financial transactions and could be misused. Moreover, unlike India, the US does not require additional authentication apart from credit card and CVV number, which makes transactions slightly more vulnerable. "It may be a good idea to include a one-time password as a security layer," says Abraham.

Over 200 million Indians are online. The Indian e-commerce market is estimated at $2 billion (Rs 12,000 crore) and is expected to cross $20 billion over the next four years.

"There is no such thing as 100 per cent protection in the digital world. The choice is between transacting online or not," says Akhilesh Tuteja, executive director of consulting firm KPMG. "Technology is becoming so sophisticated that what was good yesterday is not good today." A bigger dialogue is needed on people treating theft of digital assets just as they would physical assets, he adds.

The last big breach was reported at software maker Adobe Systems in October 2013, when it was uncovered that hackers accessed about 152 million user accounts. Last December Target said some 40 million payment card numbers and another 70 million customer records were hacked into.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/business-standard-may-23-2014-surabhi-agarwal-india-needs-better-cyber-police

India needs an independent privacy law, says NGO Privacy India

praskrishna — 2012-02-03T11:46:22Z

India needs an independent privacy law though there are a number of provisions in existing legislations that protect a citizen's privacy, according to an NGO that is lobbying for the cause. The story was published in the Economic Times on 2 February 2012.

Privacy India, a conglomerate of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and the Society in Action Group (SAG), with support from Privacy International, conducted a study of the existing laws in India related to privacy over a period of one and a half years in various cities.

A report, which will be released soon, has documented their findings about privacy laws and issues in India and high-level conclave and a national symposium on privacy will be held in Delhi on February 3 and 4.

Lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan and NCPRI head Aruna Roy will take part in the discussions on privacy in transparency, e-governance initiatives, national security, banking and health issues.

"India doesn't have a privacy law, but there are provisions for it in different laws. During the course of the research, we found that the Indian judiciary has not been very strict in overseeing the implementation of the privacy clauses in various laws," CIS member Prashant Iyengar said, while reporting some of the findings of the study.

Stricter implementation of the existing laws could go a long way in curbing most privacy issues, Iyengar said.

Published in the Economic Times on 2 February 2012. Prashant Iyengar is quoted in this.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-needs-an-independent-privacy-law-says-ngo-privacy-india

India must support UN's e-snooping move: Human rights activists

praskrishna — 2013-11-19T09:10:02Z

India is facing pressure from internet and human rights activists to support a United Nations resolution that calls for an end to electronic spying after revelations of mass illegal surveillance by the United States.

The article by Indu Nandakumar was published in the Economic Times on November 11, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The resolution, jointly submitted by Brazil and Germany - vocal opponents of US cyber spying - urged UN member states to act against excessive surveillance. Records leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden had exposed US eavesdropping on Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Internet activists and experts said the world's largest democracy must join the resolution as a reaction to unfair surveillance by the US. Confidential documents from Snowden, a former US National Security Agency contractor showed India was one of the victims of US snooping.

"Decision-makers in India haven't made a principled stand on the issue. They are still debating and deliberating," said Oleg Demidov, program director for international information security and global internet governance at the Russian Center for Policy Studies.

Demidov said India was unlikely to join the resolution as it has strong language and measures that need to be implemented immediately. "Joining this would mean a big political step." The resolution, while not legally binding, can still be a formal vote against US spying. A senior government official in New Delhi said Brazil and Germany on Friday held consultations with all UN member states including India on the draft resolution.

India will take 'detailed' look

He said India will take a "detailed look" at the resolution over the coming days before deciding whether it wants to be part of it. Revelations about US government snooping on communication between governments and individuals has caused global outrage over the past few months.

Popular email and internet service providers locating their servers in the US makes tapping into communication lines easier for that country. Brazil is considering legislation that would require internet companies to store data locally.

Latest documents revealed by Snowden showed that NSA had been monitoring data that travels between servers of Yahoo and Google, thus accessing personal data of millions of internet users across the world, including Indian users. It had prompted strong reaction from Google, whose executive chairman Eric Schimdt called such snooping "outrageous."

A representative for the German federal foreign office said the resolution was submitted to "protect human rights in the digital age more effectively" and that all member states are invited to co-sponsor the resolution.

"Indians should press their own government to forcefully object to the United States' surveillance policies and demand that those policies be brought into conformity with international law," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, an influential civil rights union based in New York. Jaffer said while no one questions the US government's right to engage judicially supervised surveillance, "dragnet surveillance of entire populations is a severe and unnecessary infringement on the privacy of millions."

He said that reforming the policies of NSA would require pressure from outside the US, especially foreign governments.

The pushback against mass surveillance is taking place in the backdrop of India and US looking to strengthen their economic relationship. Issues such as the US immigration reform bill which is seen as detrimental by India's $75 billion softw are export industry, and India's nuclear liability law, which US companies find unreasonable, have been irritants in bilateral relations.

Another senior government official said India's stance on US surveillance has been soft as any discussion on the subject would bring India's Central Monitoring System into the spotlight. The system, similar to the US government's PRISM project, gives the government access to phone calls, text messages and even social media conversations of individuals.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore based think-tank Centre for Internet and Society, said India must be a part of the efforts by Brazil and Germany.

"Surveillance needs to be addressed both at technological as well as policy levels." Former diplomat and foreign affairs expert G Parthasarathy acknowledged the need for international consensus to protect individual privacy but doubted whether snooping by governments will ever end.

"Yes, the Americans are over-doing it, but India cannot condemn it because we have been doing the same thing. India monitored conversations between (Pakistan army chief) Pervez Musharraf and his chief of general staff (Mohammed Aziz) during the Kargil conflict. The point is everyone does it, but Americans got caught."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-november-11-2013-indu-nandakumar-india-must-support-un-e-snooping-move

India may not be guilty of opposing UN move to save internet rights

praskrishna — 2016-07-09T02:58:53Z

India is a democratic country, but the standards for freedom of expression promised to us—online and offline—are highly questionable, especially with online content being censured and comedians being threatened to be arrested for sedition.

This was published by Ciol on July 7, 2016.

So the media criticism came as no surprise when India supported the amendments proposed by countries like China and Russia last week when the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution on the “promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet”.

According to some media reports, countries like Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia, as well as democracies like South Africa and India, called for the UN to delete a passage in the resolution that ‘condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to our dissemination of information online’.”

India has also been struggling to draft a comprehensive privacy bill, and most recently came out with a geospatial information regulation bill that would establish ownership over all forms of location data.

However, the fact that the resolution was adopted without a vote (with oral revision)—as noted by the UNHRC—puts these news reports on a faulty ground. So technically, India did not ‘vote against’ the resolution. Moreover, none of the four amendments supported by India called for the deletion of a passage that condemned the prevention or disruption of Internet access and online information dissemination, as noted by the Centre for Internet and Society. Although, India flouts the said clause in spirit, back at home.

Out of the four amendments—L85-88 in the UNHRC resolution–the first amendment (L85) sought to include a reference to fighting against the exploitation of children online. This was withdrawn by Russia before it was considered by member states. L86 can truly be described as diluting language regarding freedom of expression online. L88 includes reference to hate speech, asks to introduce a new paragraph that states “Expresses its concern at the use of the Internet and information and communications technology to disseminate ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, and incitement to racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance.” This amendment was proposed by Belarus, China, Iran and the Russian Federation.

Considering that the Internet and other online media technologies are increasingly used for incitement and as a means of propagating intolerance and xenophobia in India and other Asian countries, the resolution does touch on an important issue. But it doesn’t seek to limit internet freedom particularly.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ciol-july-7-2016-india-may-not-be-guilty-of-opposing-un-move-to-save-internet-rights

India limits social media after civil unrest

praskrishna — 2012-09-04T11:59:01Z

Indian officials have gone too far in limiting text messages and pressuring local Internet firms as well as Twitter and others to block accounts, critics say.

This article by Mark Magnier was published in Los Angeles Times on August 23, 2012 and re-posted in Channel 6 News on August 24, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Has the Indian government lost its sense of humor?

That's what some in India were asking as word spread that authorities had pressured Twitter into blocking several accounts parodying the prime minister after civil unrest that saw dozens of people from northeastern India killed and thousands flee in panic.

This week, the government also imposed a two-week limit of five text messages a day — raised Thursday to 20 — potentially affecting hundreds of millions of people, and pressured local Internet companies as well as Facebook, Twitter and Google to block hundreds of websites and user accounts.

Although journalists, free speech advocates and bloggers said the effort to squelch rumors may be justified, several criticized the actions as excessive.

"You cannot burn the entire house to kill one mischievous mouse," said Gyana Ranjan Swain, a senior editor at Voice & Data, a networking trade magazine. "You're in the 21st century. Their thinking is still 50 years old. It's just 'kill the messenger.'"

Comedians said Indian political humor is evolving and there's more leeway to make fun of politicians than a decade ago, but the nation's mores still call for greater respect than in the West.

"If I tried something like South Park, I'd be put behind bars tomorrow," said Rahul Roushan, founder of Faking News website, which satirizes Indian current events.

Faking News has lampooned the recent corruption scandals, including specious stories about theme restaurants (where customers must bribe waiters or go hungry); and a tongue-in-cheek report that India has banned the zero because too many of them appear nowadays in auditors' reports, after recent coal and telecommunications scandals each allegedly involving more than $30 billion.

Roushan, whose site isn't blocked, said he hopes low-level officials misinterpreted government directives.

"I'm still in a state of disbelief," he said. "I don't think the government is so stupid that it can ask that parody accounts get taken down. If they did, God help this country."

A spokesman for the prime minister's office said the blocking of six fake Twitter accounts attributed to the prime minister has been in the works for months and wasn't related to the recent crisis. He said the move was in response to tweets containing hate language and caste insults that readers could easily mistake as the Indian leader's. A dozen Twitter accounts and about 300 websites were blocked, according to news reports.

"We have not lost our sense of humor," said Pankaj Pachauri, the prime minister's spokesman. "We started a procedure to take action against people misrepresenting themselves."

But some Twitter users whose accounts are frozen, including media consultant Kanchan Gupta, counter that the government may be using the crisis to muzzle critics.

"I'm very clear in my mind this is a political decision," said Gupta, who has been critical of corruption and the government's policy drift. "If they were openly confrontational of me, they'd go nowhere, so they're trying this."

Attempts to access his Twitter page Thursday were met with the message: "This website/URL has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to Court orders or on the Directions issued by the Department of Telecommunications."

Even Britain's Queen Elizabeth II has numerous parody accounts so India needs to lighten up, consultant Gupta said.

He's received several messages from worried Pakistani friends since the news broke. "They ask if I'm all right, say they hope they haven't frog-marched you to jail," he said. "What irony."

The restrictions are the latest chapter of a crisis that started in July when Muslims and members of the Bodo tribal community in northeastern India clashed over land, jobs and politics. The result: 75 people killed and 300,000 displaced.

Muslims in Mumbai, formerly Bombay, staged a sympathy demonstration last week; two more people were killed and dozens injured.

Rumors, hate messages and altered photos of supposed atrocities against Muslims soon spread on social media sites, and several people from northeastern India were beaten in Bangalore and other cities, prompting the crackdown.

New Delhi has accused Pakistani websites of fanning the online rumors. (Islamabad said it would investigate if there's any proof.) But Indian news media also reported that 20% of the websites blocked contained inflammatory material uploaded by Hindu nationalist groups in India that were apparently trying to stir up sectarian trouble.

The Twitter community has responded with derision and humor to limits on text messages on prepaid cellphones.

"Feeling deeply insulted that I still have not been blocked," tweeted user @abhijitmajumder. "Victim of govt apathy."

Sunil Abraham, head of the Bangalore civic group Center for Internet and Society, said this week's restrictions are the latest in a series of regulations and recommendations aimed at tightening Internet control.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/articles-latimes-com-mark-magnier-aug-23-2012-india-limits-social-media-after-civil-unrest

India limits social media after civil unrest

praskrishna — 2012-08-24T12:33:21Z

Has the Indian government lost its sense of humour? That’s what some in India were asking as word spread that authorities had pressured Twitter into blocking several accounts parodying the prime minister after civil unrest that saw dozens of people from northeastern India killed and thousands flee in panic.

Published in the Australian Financial Review. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

This week, the government also imposed a two-week limit of five text messages a day – raised Thursday to 20 – potentially affecting hundreds of millions of people, and pressured local internet companies as well as Facebook, Twitter and Google to block hundreds of websites and user accounts.

Although journalists, free speech advocates and bloggers said the effort to squelch rumours may be justified, several criticised the actions as excessive.

“You cannot burn the entire house to kill one mischievous mouse,” said Gyana Ranjan Swain, a senior editor at Voice & Data, a networking trade magazine. “You’re in the 21st century. Their thinking is still 50 years old. It’s just ‘kill the messenger’. ”

Comedians said Indian political humour is evolving and there’s more leeway to make fun of politicians than a decade ago, but the nation’s mores still call for greater respect than in the West.

“If I tried something like South Park, I’d be put behind bars tomorrow,” said Rahul Roushan, founder of Faking News website, which satirises Indian current events.

Faking News has lampooned the recent corruption scandals, including specious stories about theme restaurants (where customers must bribe waiters or go hungry); and a tongue-in-cheek report that India has banned the zero because too many of them appear nowadays in auditors’ reports, after recent coal and telecommunications scandals each allegedly involving more than $US30 billion.

Roushan, whose site isn’t blocked, said he hopes low-level officials misinterpreted government directives.

“I’m still in a state of disbelief,” he said. “I don’t think the government is so stupid that it can ask that parody accounts get taken down. If they did, God help this country.”

A spokesman for the prime minister’s office said the blocking of six fake Twitter accounts attributed to the prime minister has been in the works for months and wasn’t related to the recent crisis. He said the move was in response to tweets containing hate language and caste insults that readers could easily mistake as the Indian leader’s. A dozen Twitter accounts and about 300 websites were blocked, according to news reports.

“We have not lost our sense of humour,” said Pankaj Pachauri, the prime minister’s spokesman. “We started a procedure to take action against people misrepresenting themselves.”

Muslims in Mumbai, formerly Bombay, staged a sympathy demonstration last week; two more people were killed and dozens injured.

Rumours, hate messages and altered photos of supposed atrocities against Muslims soon spread on social media sites, and several people from northeastern India were beaten in Bangalore and other cities, prompting the crackdown.

New Delhi has accused Pakistani websites of fanning the online rumours. (Islamabad said it would investigate if there’s any proof.) But Indian news media also reported that 20 per cent of the websites blocked contained inflammatory material uploaded by Hindu nationalist groups in India that were apparently trying to stir up sectarian trouble.

The Twitter community has responded with derision and humour to limits on text messages on prepaid mobile phones.

“Feeling deeply insulted that I still have not been blocked,” tweeted user @abhijitmajumder. “Victim of govt apathy.”

Sunil Abraham, head of the Bangalore civic group Centre for Internet and Society, said this week’s restrictions are the latest in a series of regulations and recommendations aimed at tightening internet control.

“Before, the government’s had no grounds for censorship, it was only acting on the bruised egos of bureaucrats and officials,” he said. “This time, it’s got a legitimate right given the disruption of public order. But it hasn’t done so very effectively.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/afr-com-aug-24-2012-mark-magnier-india-limits-social-media-after-civil-unrest

India launches crackdown on online porn

pranesh — 2015-08-05T01:21:12Z

India has launched a crackdown on internet pornography, banning access to more than 800 adult websites, including Playboy and Pornhub.

The article by James Crabtree published in Financial Times on August 3, 2015 quotes Pranesh Prakash.

The restrictions followed a ruling from India’s telecoms ministry ordering internet service providers, including international telecoms groups operating in the country such as the UK’s Vodafone, to block 857 such sites.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government provided no public justification for the unexpected ban when it came into effect at the weekend. However, on Monday India’s telecoms ministry said that the order, issued under India’s Information Technology Act, had been prompted by comments made by a supreme court judge during a hearing in July.

The ministry said that the restrictions were temporary and did not amount to a “blanket” ban, arguing that internet users running virtual private networks, which can be used to access blocked sites, could still view the material. “It isn’t that they are being banned lock, stock and barrel,” the ministry said. “The justice noted that free and open access to these websites.... should be controlled, but these sites will continue to be available through the mechanism of a VPN.”

The crackdown is set to raise fresh concerns about sudden and sweeping legal restrictions in India, after the introduction of a ban on the sale of beef earlier this year in the western state of Maharashtra, a move that was supported by Mr Modi’s government. The ruling also drew criticism from legal experts following broader concerns about a recent rise in poorly-targeted internet rules, including some restrictions on global social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

Pranesh Prakash of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society think-tank questioned the basis of the ruling, describing it as a further example of a “clumsy” approach to online regulation.

“There is no proper justification that they have given for banning all porn, rather than child porn or revenge porn or something like that,” he said. “The reaction is heavy handed, and has been done under the cloak of secrecy.” The remarks by a judge cited by India’s government as a rationale for the ban were a comment made in court rather than a legal ruling, Mr Prakash added, casting further doubt on the basis for the restrictions.

India’s mix of strict regulation and conservative public morals mean explicit sexual content is almost unheard of in mainstream media, where Bollywood films seldom featuring more than a chaste on-screen embrace.However India’s fast-growing internet population of about 300m is now both the world’s second largest after China, and an increasingly important sources for traffic for global pornographic websites.

Pornhub, which is the world’s 66th most visited website according to ranking service Alexa, said Indians were the fourth largest national users of its content during 2014.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-james-crabtree-august-3-2015-india-launches-crackdown-on-online-porn

India is building a biometric database for 1.3 billion people — and enrollment is mandatory

praskrishna — 2017-05-12T16:22:35Z

Inside the buzzing enrollment agency, young professionals wearing slim-fitting jeans and lanyards around their necks tapped away at keyboards and fiddled with fingerprint scanning devices as they helped build the biggest and most ambitious biometric database ever conceived.

The article by Shashank Bengali was published in the Los Angeles Times on May 12, 2017.

Into the office stepped Vimal Gawde, an impoverished 75-year-old widow dressed in a floral print sari. She had come to secure her ticket to India’s digital future — to enroll in the identity program, called Aadhaar, or “foundation,” that aims to record the fingerprints and irises of all 1.3 billion Indian residents.

Nearly 9 out of 10 Indians have registered, each assigned a unique 12-digit number that serves as a digital identity that can be verified with the scan of a thumb or an eye. But Gawde came to the enrollment office less out of excitement than desperation: If she didn’t get a number, she worried that she wouldn’t be able to eat.

Designed as a showcase of India’s technological prowess — offering identity proof to the poor and reducing waste in welfare programs — Aadhaar’s grand promises have been muddied by controversy as the government makes enrollment mandatory for a growing number of essential services.

Indians now need an Aadhaar number to pay taxes, collect pensions and obtain certain welfare benefits. The rapid expansion of a program that was originally described as voluntary has sparked criticism that India is vacuuming up citizens’ personal information with few privacy safeguards and creating hardship for the very people the initiative was supposed to help.

Like many Indians living in poverty, Gawde uses a ration card to purchase her monthly allotment of subsidized rice and cooking gas. But the shopkeeper told her that starting next month, he would sell to her only if she produced an Aadhaar number.

She had visited the enrollment agency three times but had yet to be approved, for reasons she did not understand. (Enrollment agents would not comment on individual cases.)

Reaching into her canvas bag, Gawde pulled out the familiar panoply of documents — ration card, voter card, electricity bill, income tax ID — that Indians use to navigate a dizzying bureaucracy. Aadhaar, she was told, would supplant all these papers.

But she had to get the number first.

“I’m nervous,” Gawde said outside the enrollment office on a sweltering morning. “I first applied three years ago and submitted all my documents, but didn’t follow up. Now that it’s becoming compulsory, I’m doing everything I can to get it.”

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who had criticized Aadhaar as a “political gimmick” before he took office, has embraced the futuristic idea of an all-in-one digital identity. His party pushed through a law last year that paved the way for a dramatic expansion of Aadhaar, allowing government entities and private businesses wide latitude to access the database, which collects not just people’s names and birth dates but also phone numbers, email addresses and other information.

Soon, as more private companies use the database, it could become difficult to open a bank account, get a new cellphone number or buy plane or train tickets without being enrolled.

Supporters say the program, which has cost about $1 billion to implement, will save multiples of that by curbing tax evasion and ensuring that welfare subsidies are not stolen by middlemen.

“Aadhaar was always meant to be an instrument of inclusion,” Nandan Nilekani, a tech billionaire and the program’s first chairman, said in an interview. “I’m really happy that the current government is completely endorsing Aadhaar and using it for a wide variety of services that will transform governance.”

Nilekani calls Aadhaar “hugely empowering” for the poor, but not long ago even he argued that enrollment should remain optional so that no Indians were prevented from accessing essential services. India’s Supreme Court agreed, ruling in 2015 that the government could not require Aadhaar for any benefit to which a person was otherwise entitled, as long as they could prove their identity by some other means.

Yet the court has stayed silent as Aadhaar creeps into every facet of Indian life, even for children.

A 12-year-old girl named Saiba is a case in point. After the girl’s grandmother passed away in their family’s ancestral village in northern India, Saiba’s mother moved her and her four siblings to a crowded neighborhood on the rough fringes of New Delhi, near a car parts market thick with the smell of grease.

When Saiba’s mother, Rani, went to the local school in April to register her for the sixth grade, administrators turned her down, saying every student must have an Aadhaar number.

But to get a number, a child usually needs a birth certificate — and like one-quarter of children born in this country, Saiba and her siblings did not have them because their village did not routinely register births.

Sitting with her mother in the cramped offices of the local advocacy group Pardarshita, above a noisy street lined with vegetable sellers, the girl puffed her round cheeks in an expression of helplessness.

“I don’t know anything about this,” said Saiba, who, like many Indians, has only one name. “I just want to go to school.”

Rakesh Thakur, a board member of Pardarshita, is trying to obtain Aadhaar numbers for dozens of children barred from Delhi schools. He called the policy “a clear violation” by the municipal government of both the Supreme Court order and India’s Right to Education Act, which guarantees every child younger than 14 free schooling.

A Twitter account called “Rethink Aadhaar” logs new instances almost daily of Indians who have suffered because scanners couldn’t read their fingerprints or because of errors in the database.

In Jawhar, a forested zone about 60 miles north of Mumbai, administrators have told local tribal communities that they will soon use Aadhaar to distribute welfare rations and school lunches. But the area lies outside cellphone range, leading residents to wonder how scanners will connect to the Internet to verify their identities.

“The idea of Aadhaar and the technology may be good, but do we have the infrastructure to make it mandatory?” said Vivek Pandit, a former lawmaker who runs a nonprofit group in the area. “The law is city-centric, and it would only lead to the social exclusion of rural India.”

This month lawyers opposing Aadhaar argued before the Supreme Court that the government could not force Indians to share their biometric data. Atty. Gen. Mukul Rohatgi countered that Indians had no constitutional right to privacy and could not claim an “absolute right” over their bodies.

Without privacy protections, activists worry that as Aadhaar numbers are linked to more and more services, intelligence agencies could use the database to more easily track Indians’ calls, travels and purchases.

“It’s become very clear that this is not a project about the poor,” said Usha Ramanathan, a lawyer and anti-Aadhaar activist. “The government’s ambitions have gotten greater over time.”

This month, the Center for Internet and Society, a New Delhi think tank, reported that federal and state agencies had published up to 135 million Aadhaar numbers — some including sensitive information such as a person’s caste and religion, or details of pension payments — on unsecured websites accessible through just a few clicks.

It’s become very clear that this is not a project about the poor. — Usha Ramanathan, a lawyer and anti-Aadhaar activist

Pranesh Prakash, the center’s policy director, said that when Indian authorities can’t even keep Aadhaar numbers private, as the law requires, it suggests the entire database is vulnerable — particularly after sensitive information involving 22 million Americans was exposed when federal databases were hacked in 2015.

“When these kinds of leaks are happening, it’s rather foolhardy to maintain a database of 1.2 billion people’s biometrics, because once this gets breached, it becomes completely unusable,” Prakash said.

“If your PIN number or password leaks, you can change it. You can’t change your fingerprints.”

Praveen Chakravarty, a former investment banker who worked with Nilekani to launch Aadhaar, believes the lack of safeguards undermines the project’s ideals of efficiency and empowerment. He said many Indians were right to worry that Modi’s government, which has cracked down on political activists and nonprofit groups it opposes, could use Aadhaar to snoop on citizens.

“Maybe Aadhaar didn’t need to be this big,” Chakravarty said, adding that the government could simply have worked to fix inefficiencies in individual welfare programs.

“People could ask, ‘Did we need this at all?’” he said. “It’s a good question.”

For Gawde, the widow, Aadhaar remained an idea of the future. She left the enrollment agency that day empty-handed, told by a young employee that her number had not been assigned. But she retained hope that the new ID would make life easier.

“We are just poor people,” she said. “We have to trust what the government tells us.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/los-angeles-times-shashank-bengali-may-12-2017-india-is-building-a-biometric-database-for-1.3-billion-people-and-enrollment-is-mandatory

India internet: clean-up or censorship?

praskrishna — 2012-01-16T11:17:11Z

Is India going the way of China? Not when it comes to development indicators. Or enhanced infrastructure. Or economic power. But in another category at which Beijing excels: web censorship.

That was the implication of a ruling on Thursday from Justice Suresh Kait, of the Delhi High Court, who told lawyers for Facebook India and Google India that unless they develop mechanisms to regulate “offensive and objectionable” material on their web sites, India is prepared to take drastic measures, according to the Hindustan Times. “Like China, we will block all such websites,” Kalit declared.

According to the IBN news channel, the government seems to be moving to make good on those threats:

Government sources said on Friday that the Delhi High Court was likely to issue sanctions to prosecute social networking sites Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo India in the ongoing spat between the companies and the Government of India over content regulation.

“Prosecution for some of the non-bailable offences requires prior sanction of the government, which has been sought and it is likely to be granted,” the sources said.

[…]

Summons are to be sent to the companies through the Ministry of External Affairs directing their heads to appear before court on March 13, which is when the next hearing will take place. The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology will file its affidavit by this evening.

Clearly there’s trouble in “the world’s largest democracy”.

Kalit’s pronouncement is the latest turn in a story that broke last month, when the New York Times reported that telecoms minister Kapil Sibal had met with executives from Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Microsoft to discuss the pre-emptive removal of “offensive material” – including, it seems, web pages that had criticized the leader of his party, Sonia Gandhi.

As beyondbrics reported, Sibal then gave a combative press conference where he said: “I believe that no reasonable person aware of the sensibilities of large sections of communities in this country and aware of community standards as they are applicable in India would wish to see this content in the public domain,” referring to “offensive material” he had shown some reporters prior to the conference.

He added, repeatedly, that the government did not believe in censorship.

Apparently, Kalit didn’t get the memo.

Lawyers for the internet giants appeared before the judge to request the dismissal of a criminal complaint filed by a private citizen in a lower court under sections of the Indian law that cover “sale of obscene books etc”, “sale of obscene objects to young person etc” and “criminal conspiracy”. The judge declined.

“The magistrate of the trial court had observed that the material submitted by the complainant contained obscene pictures and derogatory articles pertaining to various Hindu gods, Prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ”, IBN reported.

According to the Hindustan Times:

On behalf of Google India, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi said it was humanly not possible to filter or monitor the postings of obscene, objectionable and defamatory material. “Billions of people across the globe, post their articles on the website. Yes, they may be defamatory, obscene but cannot be checked,” he said.

A Google spokesperson issued a statement last night, saying, “We did file a petition before the Delhi High Court. The Court has now issued a notice to the petitioner. We can’t comment at this stage.”

Today, the company issued a clarification:

Today the Court has merely directed the petitioner to serve the Court order to the overseas entities at their respective addresses and has adjourned the matter to March 13th.

Last month, a lower court had ordered the sites to remove all “anti-social” or “anti-relgious” content by February 6.

As Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society, told beyondbrics last month, it’s difficult to establish exactly what is anti-religious: for example, the Hindu profession of belief in multiple gods is blasphemous to Muslims, Christians and Jews.

A lower court had directed the central government to take “immediate appropriate steps” and file a report by January 13.

It has not been released yet, but later on Friday you can Google it. Take the opportunity – if India goes the way of China, it might prove more difficult in future.

This blog post by Neil Munshi was published in beyondbrics on 13 January 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/clean-up-or-censorship

India High Court: No Takedown Requests On Social Sites Without Court, Gov't Order

praskrishna — 2015-04-03T06:18:52Z

Indian police will no longer be able to threaten Internet users and online intermediaries with jail merely on the basis of a complaint that they have posted “offensive” posts online.

The blog post by Madhur Singh was published in Bloomberg BNA on March 25, 2015. Geetha Hariharan gave her inputs.

Following a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India March 24, law enforcement agencies will be able to take action in such cases only after an order has been obtained from a court or the government (Singhal v.Union of India, India Sup. Ct., 3/24/15).

The court struck down in its entirety Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which authorized criminal penalties for sending “offensive” messages through electronic communication services. Opponents of the measure said the section defined “offensive” very vaguely and broadly, and that cases of arrest under the section frequently made headlines.

Freedom of speech activists and Internet-based businesses welcomed the judgment as a boost for civil liberties, freedom of speech and a conducive business environment for an entire gamut of online businesses.

The judgment is good news for intermediaries such as Facebook Inc. and the India-based review site MouthShut.com, both of which have been repeatedly inundated with takedown notices based on complaints against “offensive” posts.

Offensive Posts Were Actionable Under Section 66A

Section 66A, added to the Information Technology Act of 2000 through an amendment in February 2009, prescribed imprisonment of up to three years and a fine for anyone who sends via a computer resource or communication device:

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character;
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages.

A supporting Section 79(3)(b) stated that “upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act,” the intermediary would have to “expeditiously remove or disable access to that material or that resource.”

Together, these sections put ordinary Internet users at risk for arrest for simply posting online and obligated intermediaries such as Twitter Inc., Facebook, MouthShut.com and others to take down content simply pursuant to a complaint.

Earlier this month, Facebook revealed statistics indicating that India is second on its global list of governments demanding takedowns.

Court Removes Intermediaries' Discretion

Shwetasree Majumder, partner at Fidus Law Chambers, told Bloomberg BNA March 25 that after this decision, any blocking of content can now only take place via a reasoned order after complying with several procedural safeguards, including a hearing to the originator and intermediary either by the designated
officer or pursuant to an order passed by a competent court.

“So intermediaries like Google, Facebook etc. are no longer required to judge as to whether the take down notices received by them contain legitimate requests or not,” she wrote in an e-mail. “As an acknowledgement that a true intermediary should not concern itself with the merits of the content posted by third parties, the court takes away the intermediary's discretion as to what content must remain and what must go.”

Geetha Hariharan, program officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, told Bloomberg BNA that after “reading down” Section 79, the Supreme Court “has relieved the intermediary of its responsibility to judge the lawfulness of content. Now, the intermediary will lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b) (and be liable
to prosecution or penalty) only if it does not take content down after receiving ‘actual knowledge of a court order or government notification' requiring takedown of content.”

Prior to the judgment, an intermediary was required to judge whether a takedown notice concerned unlawful content on its website, which would constitute “actual knowledge” under the section. If the intermediary made an affirmative determination, it was required to take the content down or lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b).

Supreme Court Strikes Down 66A

Momentum against Section 66A built up over the last three years, particularly after law student Shreya Singhal filed a challenge in the Supreme Court after two Mumbai women were arrested and put in jail for 10 days in 2012 for Facebook posts against a shutdown of Mumbai city following a politician's death.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Jasti Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman heard ten such cases together, and ruled March 24 that Section 66A was unconstitutional as it directly affected the right of the public to know. Holding that Section 66A was “open ended, undefined, and vague” so that “virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net,” the court struck it down in its entirety.

The court said that Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries (Guidelines) Rules, 2011, which pertains to an intermediary disabling access to material that is “known” to be violative of Rule 3(2), needed to be read down in the same manner as Section 79(3)(b).

The court, however, upheld Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which gives the government the power to block web content if doing so is in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity or security of India.

Impact on Intermediary Liability

Overall, Majumder said that intermediary liability now stands significantly watered down. One particular case this might impact is the currently pending Super Cassettes India Ltd. v MySpace Inc. case before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which is considering the validity of the high threshold of intermediary liability prescribed by a single judge in copyright infringement cases.

Hariharan wrote in an e-mail that while intermediaries such as Internet service providers (ISPs) or content hosts may “choose” to take down content when they receive a private takedown notice, they don't “need” to do so to remain immune under Section 79(3)(b) or Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines.

“This reduces uncertainty in intermediary liability in India. It will also hopefully keep intermediaries from taking down content in an overbroad manner to escape liability,” Hariharan said, adding that the government nevertheless continues to have the ability to criminalize online acts. For instance, Sections 66B
to 67B of the IT Act define and criminalize different online conduct. Additionally, sections of the Indian Penal Code that criminalize speech acts (e.g., Sections 295A and 153A for incitement; Section 292 for obscenity) have also been applied to online acts in the past.

The Internet & Mobile Association of India said in a statement on its website March 24 that the judgment will mark a new phase for the growth and evolution of the Internet in India. While Internet users will no longer fear illegal censorship or harassment, it said that “online businesses, ranging from established international companies to small Indian startups, will be able to take advantage of a more conducive business environment.”

The IAMAI added that the judgment will be especially helpful to smaller companies such as Mouthshut.com that will “now not be harassed by the frivolous and mal-intentioned notices of take down.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-march-25-2015-madhur-singh-india-high-court-no-takedown-requests-on-social-sites-without-court-govt-order

India for UN body to resolve internet governance issues

praskrishna — 2013-12-26T08:51:05Z

Multi-stakeholder or multi-lateral - two words encapsulating diametrically opposite views on internet governance stands at the heart of a raging debate across the globe.

The article by Kim Arora was published in the Times of India on December 5, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

At the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) meeting in Geneva last month, India suggested forming a multi-lateral UN body to co-ordinate on internet governance issues. And several activists feel that is not the right way forward.

Multi-stakeholder control over the world wide web means parties other than governments, which include the tech community, academia, businesses and civil society. In a multi-lateral arrangement, only the governments will be the decision-makers and every other stakeholder barring the state, is relegated to a purely advisory role. Simply put, the choice is between total state control over the internet or a more democratic set-up where other sections of society are also represented.

Civil society and businesses are concerned that being relegated to an advisory role rather than a decision-making one could lead to disregarding or dumping their inputs.

"Everyone must have a seat at the table," says Rajan Mathews, director general of the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI). "If you are designing a new model, it is important that it is as inclusive as possible. That will create better decisions. It will also discourage back-door bargaining between governments," says Anja Kovacs of the Internet Democracy Project.

The internet architecture has always been controlled by the US. The demand for a more democratised set-up, where other countries also have a voice, started in early 2000s. In 2005, a consensus document, Tunis Agenda, had been signed under the aegis of the UN. It laid out much of the terms of the debate around internet governance, including the focus on enhanced cooperation and the need for a multi-stakeholder model.

In 2011, India put forward a detailed proposal for a multi-lateral UN body that was widely criticised by activists and business bodies at home. In Geneva this November, India's answer to a question on implementing "enhanced cooperation" in a WGEC questionnaire, went like this: "A suitable multilateral, transparent and democratic mechanism must be created where governments, on an equal footing, may carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues pertaining to coordination and management of critical Internet resources, in consultation with all other stakeholders."

Ajay Kumar of the Department of Electronics and Communication Technology (DeitY), was a part of the delegation representing India at Geneva. The DeitY falls under the union ministry of communication and information technology. Kumar told TOI, that while there is a relook at the 2011 proposal, India has been following the Tunis Agenda when it comes to enhanced cooperation between different countries and other stakeholders.

Nonetheless, Parminder Jeet Singh of the NGO IT for Change has supported the government position at the WGEC meeting. The two other civil society bodies from India at Geneva wanted a multi-stakeholder model. Singh feels that the proposal may have an important role to play at a later stage when "real political talk shapes up". "We don't agree that a Google or an IT for Change should vote in the decision-making about actual public policies. We understand the fear (behind such an arrangement) but we prefer that public policy decisions at global level remain with governments as they are legitimate representatives of the people," he says.

However, Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Center for Internet and Society, warns against the governmental tendency to centralize and for being opaque. He also feels that a single model, whether multilateral or multi-stakeholder, will not work. Every model must change with every issue being brought to the table, he says. "For instance, something like controlling child pornography, will need one kind of model to deal with. The same won't work when dealing with hate speech," Abraham points out.

Activists are hoping that the Brazil global multi-stakeholder meeting in April next year will take the issue of democratised internet governance forward.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-december-5-2013-kim-arora-india-for-un-body-to-resolve-internet-governance-issues

India for inclusive internet governance

praskrishna — 2014-05-05T10:36:52Z

India wants "core internet infrastructure" to be part of an international legal system that would accommodate governments, civil society and other stakeholders. In typical Indian diplomatic style, its position can be interpreted to mean everything and nothing.

The article by Indrani Bagchi published in the Times of India on April 25, 2014 quotes Sunil Abraham.

An MEA team, led by joint secretary Vinay Kwatra, told Net Mundial (forum for internet governance) in Brazil on Thursday, "The elements of India's approach on internet governance respond to its growing complexity and rests in supporting the dynamism, security and openness of a single and unfragmented cyberspace. We also support innovation and robust private sector investment to augment internet's continuing growth and evolution."

The Indian position is essentially an MEA position, because there has been little prior inter-agency consultation in the government. In fact, while the MEA had decided upon its team almost a month ago, the department of information technology woke up only last week. It was on Friday that the nodal ministry for IT-related issues even agreed to send a team to Brazil on Monday- the same team that the MEA was sending. If nothing else, sources said, this only highlighted the lack of seriousness within the Indian system.

Kwatra said internet should have a democratic governing system involving everyone, which would essentially mean creating a parallel international system. While India does not want the status quo to continue, there is no clarity whether it favours a multilateral or a multi-stakeholder system. India, like China, wants a strong state presence in the decision-making process of internet governance because "it is used for transactions of core economic, civil and defence assets at national level and in the process, countries are placing their core national security interests in this medium". On the other hand, it wants unfettered access to knowledge and technology as a nation-building and governance tool.

Additionally, India wants non-governmental stakeholders to be properly audited and a "clear delineation of principles governing their participation, including their accountability, representativeness, transparency and inclusiveness". There is a crying need for India to clearly define the future it expects to thrive in.

Sunil Abhraham of Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society says India should take the lead in defining new internet rules, keeping its future in mind. "We could use patent pools and compulsory licensing to provide affordable and innovative digital hardware to the developing world. This would ensure that rights-holders, innovators, manufactures, consumers and government would all benefit ... We could explore flat-fee licensing models like a broadband copyright cess or levy to ensure that users get content at affordable rates and rights-holders get some royalty from all internet users in India. This will go a long way in undermining the copyright enforcement-based censorship regime that has been established by the US. We could enact a world-class privacy law and establish an independent, autonomous and proactive privacy commissioner who will keep both private and state actors on a short lease. We need a scientific, targeted surveillance regime that is in compliance with human rights principles. This will make India simultaneously an IP and privacy haven and thereby attract huge investment from the private sector, and also earn the goodwill of the global civil society and independent media."

This is more than the Indian government has thought of.

While no binding decisions are expected from Brazil this week, the high profile event is expected to trigger a high-level debate on possible reforms. India, say officials, needs to come up with concrete proposals. This is imperative after the US made two crucial decisions on internet governance this year. In March the US announced that by September 2015 it would give up oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based non-profit group, that assigns domain names. But the US is clear it will not hand over the levers to any organization that can be controlled by any other country. This week, the US' FCC dealt a body blow to the concept of "net neutrality" (which essentially functions on the premise that access to the internet is the same for everyone) by allowing companies like Disney and Google to pay for premium internet speeds.

Countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia (may be even Iran) seek to control net access for their citizens as a measure of political control. Second, cyber offensive by countries which are ramping up capacity in these fields could take over internet governance structures if they are not crafted carefully enough. If the US is relinquishing control over ICANN, the next global battle is likely to be over who takes over that mantle. This makes it important to get net governance right. At least China has a plan: It wants the UN to take control. India wants a bit of everything, without actually giving it a shape, making it virtually impossible to shape the debate.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-april-25-indrani-bagchi-india-for-inclusive-internet-governance

INDIA Fears of Privacy Loss Pursue Ambitious ID Project

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:00:44Z

Fears about loss of privacy are being voiced as India gears up to launch an ambitious scheme to biometrically identify and number each of its 1.2 billion inhabitants.

In September, officials from the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), armed with fingerprinting machines, iris scanners and cameras hooked to laptops, will fan out across the towns and villages of southern Andhra Pradesh state in the first phase of the project whose aim is to give every Indian a lifelong Unique ID (UID) number.

"The UID is soft infrastructure, much like mobile telephony, important to connect individuals to the broader economy," explains Nandan Nilekani, chairman of the UIDAI and listed in 2009 by Time magazine as among the world's 100 most influential people.

Nilekani is a co-founder of the influential National Association of Software and Services Companies and, before this assignment, chief of Infosys Technologies, flagship of India's information technology (IT) sector.

According to Nilekani, the UID will most benefit India's poor who, because they lack identity documentation, are ignored by service providers.

"The UID number, with its 'anytime, anywhere' biometric authentication, addresses the problem of trust," argues Nilekani.

But a group of prominent civil society organisations are running a Campaign For No-UID, explaining that it is a "deeply undemocratic and expensive exercise" that is "fraught with unforeseen consequences."

Participants in the campaign include well-known human rights organisations such as the Alternative Law Forum, Citizen Action Forum, People's Union for Civil Liberties, Indian Social Action Forum, and the Centre for Internet and Society.

A meeting was organised by the campaigners in New Delhi on Aug. 25 where speakers ridiculed the idea of a 12-digit number, and said it is unlikely to rectify, for example, the massive corruption in the public distribution system that is supposed to provide food to poor families.

J.T. D'Souza, an IT expert, asserted at the meeting that the use of biometrics on such a massive scale has never been attempted before and is bound to be riddled with costly glitches.

Other speakers raised issues of security and the possibility of hackers getting at databases and passing on information to commercial outfits, intelligence agencies or even criminal gangs.

In talks and television interviews, Nilekani has maintained that the benefits of the UID project far outweigh its risks. "It's worth taking on the project and trying to mitigate the risks so that we get the outcomes we want," he told the CNN-IBN television channel in an interview.

But the possibility of religious profiling by state governments or misuse by caste lobbies is real. This is because the central government has decided to include caste as a category in the UID questionnaire to be filled out by applicants.

Because identity is already a potent issue and the trigger for frequent identity-related conflict – such as the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat that left 2,000 people dead – any exercise that enhances identification is fraught.

Usha Ramanathan, a prominent legal expert who is attached to the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in the national capital, does not buy the UIDAI's assurances.

At the Aug. 25 meeting, Ramanthan said that while enrolling with the UIDAI may be voluntary, other agencies and service providers might require a UID number in order to transact business. Indeed, the UIDAI has already signed agreements with banks, state governments and hospital chains which will allow them to ask customers for UIDs.

Ramanathan said that, taken to its logical limit, the UID project will make it impossible, in a couple of years, for an ordinary citizen to undertake a simple task such as travelling within the country without a UID number.

The UIDAI will work with the National Population Register (NPR) which draws its powers from the Citizenship Rules of 2003 and provides for penalties if information is withheld.

And as a government website says: "Certain information collected under the NPR will be published in the local areas for public scrutiny and invitation of objections." Seeking to allay privacy fears, the website goes on to explain that this is merely "in the nature of the electoral roll or the telephone directory."

But things begin to look ominous when seen in the context of the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), the setting up of which home minister P. Chidambaram announced in February as part of his response to a major terrorist attack.

Chidambaram said NATGRID would tap into 21 sets of databases that will be networked to achieve "quick, seamless and secure access to desired information for intelligence and enforcement agencies."

He added that NATGRID will "identify those who must be watched, investigated, disabled and neutralised."

"Internationally only a few countries have provided national ID cards because of the unsettled debate on privacy and civil liberties," says Prof. R. Ramakumar at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Mumbai. He added that several countries have had to withdraw ID card schemes or drop biometric aspects because of public opposition.

Nilekani maintains that the main purpose of the UID project is to empower the vast numbers of excluded Indians. "For the poor this is a huge benefit because they have no identities, no birth certificates, degree certificates, driver's licences, passports or even addresses." (END/2010)

Read the original news in IPS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-fears-of-privacy-loss