We are anonymous, we are legion

India bid to censor Internet draws flak

praskrishna — 2011-12-09T10:36:30Z

Indian government efforts to block offensive material from the Internet have prompted a storm of online ridicule along with warnings of the risk to India's image as a bastion of free speech.

Communications Minister Kapil Sibal pledged a crackdown on "unacceptable" online content, saying Internet giants such as Google, Yahoo! and Facebook had ignored India's demands to screen images and data before they are uploaded.

"We will evolve guidelines and mechanisms to deal with the issue," Sibal told reporters this week, without detailing what steps might be taken.

His comments provoked anger and derision among Indian Internet users, while experts raised doubts about the practicalities of enforcing any directive and others questioned the government's motives.

Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said it would be "impractical on the level of scale and on the level of the objective test".

"What's offensive for someone might be completely banal to somebody else," he told AFP. Any ham-fisted government crackdown would "have a high impact on our credibility as a democracy" and risk alienating India's growing online community, Abraham said.

"We should be doing almost everything to promote the take-up of the Internet. It's almost tragic that we're pushing in the opposite direction," he added.

India, the world's largest democracy, has more than 110 million Internet users out of a population of 1.2 billion, with predictions that 600 million people will be online in the next five years.

#KapilSibal has this week become one of the most trending topics among Indian users of the micro-blogging site Twitter, with many resorting to humour to mock the minister.

Some likened his comments to attempts by Pakistan's telecoms regulator last month to ban text messages containing nearly 1,700 words it deemed "obscene", which was shelved after outrage from users and campaigners.

The satirical Indian web site fakingnews.com

compared Sibal's plans to the futuristic Hollywood film "Minority Report", in which criminals are arrested before committing their crimes. It also carried a spoof news article headlined: "All Facebook posts to have 'Kapil Sibal likes this' by default".

The mainstream media has been generally critical of Sibal as well, warning the government that it could not be seen to over-step the boundaries protecting India's treasured democratic values.

"Pre-screening of content amounts to unacceptable censorship," the Business Standard said in an editorial.

There was even a mild expression of concern from Washington where US State Department spokesman Mark Toner was asked about the Indian government's stance.

"We are concerned about any effort to curtail freedom of expression on the Internet," Toner said, while carefully avoiding any direct criticism of Sibal's proposals.

Sibal rejected any suggestion of an assault on free speech, saying the government had pleaded for self-regulation by companies such as Google to filter out deeply "insulting" material.

He highlighted examples of faked pictures of naked politicians, including Congress Party head Sonia Gandhi, and other images and social network pages that he said could inflame religious tensions.

India has in the past moved to block the publication of books and other material seen as disrespectful to Gandhi, or other members of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty that has dominated India's political life since independence.

Vijay Mukhi, a Mumbai-based freelance consultant who writes on Internet security, said Sibal had shown a fundamental lack of understanding about technology and was badly-advised.

He also saw in the reaction to the proposals a sign of how the Internet is undermining traditional unquestioning respect and deference towards elders and authority figures.

"Most of us in India are very sensitive about what people say. The problem also is that whilst the Internet is there, you have to have a thick hide," said Mukhi.

"Politicians have got to create a second, third or fourth skin to be immune to the criticism that they get."

New Delhi has been accused before of censorship after demanding that BlackBerry makers Research In Motion give Indian security services access to encrypted messaging and email services.

Analysts agreed that under certain circumstances, particularly national security, pre- or post-censorship was acceptable, as India was the frequent target of extremists.

Abraham, though, said any ban on data and images on decency grounds without a prior complaint was doomed to fail and likely to be contrary to the constitutional right of freedom of expression if challenged in court.

Phil Hazlewood spoke to Sunil Abraham and published this article for AFP. Read the original hosted by Google here

Related Media Coverage
Various newspapers and channels also published this news on their sites:

India bid to censor Internet draws flak [France 24, 9 December 2011]
Indian push to screen Internet content draws flak [Khaleej Times, 9 December 2011]
India bid to censor Internet draws flak [Physorg.com, 9 December 2011]
India censorship bid gets flak [TimesLive, 9 December 2011]
India bid to censor Internet draws flak [Bangkok Post, 9 December 2011]
India bid to censor Internet draws flak [Yahoo News, 9 December 2011]
India bid to censor Internet draws flak [MSN News, 9 December 2011]
Indian push to screen Internet content draws flak [Emirates 24/7, 9 December 2011]
Indian push to screen internet content draws flak [Business Live, 9 December 2011]
Indian Push to Screen Internet Content Draws Flak [Jakarta Globe, 9 December 2011]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-bid-to-censor-net-draws-flak

India believes in Complete Freedom of Cyber Space: Kapil Sibal

praskrishna — 2013-10-25T07:13:44Z

The site of the impact of a cyber crime should determine jurisdiction, says information technology minister Kapil Sibal.

This article by Elizabeth Roche was published in Livemint on October 14, 2013. Moulishree Srivastava also contributed to this story. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Minister for communications and information technology Kapil Sibal said on Monday that if a cyber crime had an impact on India or the subject matter was Indian, India should have the jurisdiction to investigate the crime and mete out justice.

India “believes in complete freedom of cyber space”, Sibal said, adding that the international community should arrive at a consensus on rules of jurisdiction and enforceability where cyber crimes are concerned. He was speaking at a conference on cyber security and cyber governance in New Delhi.

“Freedom of expression is central to our ideological stand on cyber space but at the same time there must be a de facto recognition of threats that are out there in cyber space and that we need to deal with those threats locally, nationally and globally and what we need is a consensus on those,” the minister said.

He was asked specifically about the need for changes in the global Internet governance structure following a US admission that its National Security Agency listened in on communications from the embassies of allies such as France, Italy and Greece, as well as Japan, Mexico, South Korea, India and Turkey.

The site of the impact of a cyber crime should determine jurisdiction, the minister said.

He gave an example: if anything happens in an Indian mission located in New York, it should be governed by Indian law because the mission would be considered Indian territory.

“So as long as the source of the data is Indian and the impact is on India then the jurisdiction must be Indian and that should apply across the world,” he said.

“If the harm has been caused to Indian citizens or Indian property then jurisdiction should be Indian,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director at Centre for Internet and Society. “This principle has already been developed by Justice Murlidhar in Banyan Tree case. So this principle already has legal precedent.”

But Abraham added that “even if Indian courts believe that it is their jurisdiction, foreign law enforcement agencies may not co-operate. This may be one of the biggest challenges in implementing this principle”.

“This move could be seen as one enhancing cyber security, but since there is no universally accepted definition to cyber security and some government include speech regulation, surveillance, cyber crime and hacktivism a part of cyber security—there can be damaging consequences for human rights online,” Abraham said.

The minister’s statement assumes significance against the backdrop of a number of countries including India protesting the spying by the US National Security Agency (NSA) on their missions in Washington and New York.

According to many news reports, India was among the top five countries whose missions in the US were targeted by the NSA as part of a clandestine effort to mine electronic data. Reports of the US snooping has caused unease world wide.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel raised the issue with US President Barack Obama in June while Brazil’s President Dilma Rouseff reportedly cancelled a summit with the US President in protest last month.

According to the ministry of external affairs in New Delhi, India raised the issue with the US embassy in New Delhi besides taking up the issue with the US state department in Washington. Both sides agreed to discuss the subject during their cyber security dialogue.

“That’s the law in the country...if anything happens there (in Indian embassies) that is part of Indian jurisdiction and similarly if you apply the same example and establish jurisdiction then anything that relates to Indian data and the impact on Indian data, it’s the courts in India that should have jurisdiction,” Sibal added later.

“We are talking about a principle and the principle is wherever there is Indian data wherever anything is done to impact on Indian data, the source of which is Indian then the jurisdiction must be of Indian courts,” the minister said adding that he was putting this view out as something the cyber security seminar should discuss.

India’s national security adviser Shiv Shankar Menon added that what the minister had voiced was India’s view but it was not a settled matter and that it had to be discussed at global forums.

With around 40% of the 120 million smartphone users in India accessing the Internet through mobile phones, network protection was an imperative. “The consequences of manipulation or distortion...can be potentially disastrous.” Menon said recalling how morphed pictures of violence seemingly targeting a particular ethnic group, circulated on the Internet and via cell phones, had resulted in thousands of people fleeing home from their places of work last year.

On certification of hardware security, Menon said: “India has recently received authorizing nation status for IT products and testing labs in the country will now gain global recognition,” adding that this was an opportunity for Indian industry.

Sibal, in his address, said the Internet had become a means of empowerment of people and most of this was due to the enormous freedom provided by the Internet. But “there can be no concept of sovereignty in cyber space because there are no territorial issues involved”, he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-october-14-2013-elizabeth-roche-moulishree-srivastava-india-believes-in-complete-freedom-of-cyber-space

India bans social media in Kashmir for one month

praskrishna — 2017-04-27T16:09:56Z

Authorities in Indian-controlled Kashmir have banned 22 social media sites including Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter in an effort to calm tensions in the disputed region.

The article was published in the Telegraph on April 27, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

The government said Wednesday that the one-month ban was necessary for public safety because social media were being "misused by anti-national and anti-social elements." Videos depicting the alleged abuse of Kashmiris by Indian forces fueled protests have been shown on social media in recent days.

"It's being felt that continued misuse of social networking sites and instant messaging services is likely to be detrimental to the interests of peace and tranquility in the state," the public order said.

The sites remained online Thursday as the local telecom company struggled to block them.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director for the Indian advocacy group the Center for Internet and Society, called the ban a "blow to freedom of speech" and "legally unprecedented in India."

An official with Kashmir's state-owned telecom company, Bharat Sanchar Nigam, said engineers were still working on shutting down the 22 sites, including Facebook and Twitter, but so far had been unable to do so without freezing the internet across the Himalayan region. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give technical details of the effort to the media.

Meanwhile, 3G and 4G cellphone service has been suspended for more than a week, but slower 2G service is still available.

Residents of Srinagar, the region's main city, were busily downloading documents, software and applications onto their smartphones which would likely be able to circumvent the social media block once it goes into effect. Many expressed relief to still have internet access Thursday morning.

"It was a welcome surprise," said Tariq Ahmed, a 24-year-old university student. "It appears they've hit a technical glitch to block social media en mass."

While the government has halted internet service in Kashmir in previous attempts to prevent anti-India demonstrations, this is the first time they have done so in response to the circulation of videos and photos showing alleged military abuse.

Others mocked the government. A Facebook post by Kashmiri writer Arif Ayaz Parrey said the ban showed "the Indian government has decided to take on the collective subversive wisdom of cyberspace humanity."

Indian police and paramilitary officials accuse agitators of using social media to instigate violence.

An international journalists' rights group urged Indian authorities to immediately revoke the "sweeping censorship of social media," saying it "will bring neither peace nor order" in the region.

"Such broad censorship clearly violates the democratic ideals and human rights India purports to uphold," said Steven Butler, Asia Program coordinator at the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists.

Kashmiris have been uploading videos and photos of alleged abuse for some years, but several recently posted clips, captured in the days surrounding a violence-plagued local election on April 9, have proven to be especially powerful and have helped to intensify anti-India protests.

One video shows a stone-throwing teenage boy being shot by a soldier from a few meters (yards) away. Another shows soldiers making a group of young men, held inside an armored vehicle, shout profanities against Pakistan while a soldier kicks and slaps them with a stick.

The video pans to a young boy's bleeding face as he cries. Yet another clip shows three soldiers holding a teenage boy down with their boots and beating him on his back.

The video that drew the most outrage was of young shawl weaver Farooq Ahmed Dar tied to the hood of an army jeep as it patrolled villages on voting day. A soldier can be heard saying in Hindi over a loudspeaker, "Stone throwers will meet a similar fate," as residents look on aghast.

Protests and clashes are an almost daily occurrence in Indian-administered Kashmir, where anti-India sentiment runs deep among the mostly Muslim population after decades of military crackdowns. Disputes over control of the Kashmir region, claimed by both India and Pakistan, have sparked two wars between the nations since 1947.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-telegraph-april-27-2017-india-bans-social-media-in-kashmir-for-one-month

India Bans Mass SMS to Counter Panic

praskrishna — 2012-08-27T07:29:59Z

Last year social networking was credited with helping to organize revolutions across the Middle East and with getting normally apathetic middle-class Indians onto the streets to protest corruption.

This article by Shreya Shah was published in the Wall Street Journal on August 17, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

But in recent days, India has seen a darker side of social networking, as doctored videos of Muslims being attacked and text messages warning of retaliation by Muslims went viral in the wake of riots in the northeastern state of Assam.

The messages have caused panic among thousands of Indians and spurred attacks and clashes in two cities. In an attempt to calm the situation, India banned the ability to send mass text messages on Friday afternoon, the home ministry press office confirmed. The ban will stay in effect for two weeks.

In remarks to Parliament on Friday, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, “The unity and integrity of our country is being threatened by certain elements.”

The riots in Assam saw clashes between Bodo tribals and Muslim immigrants, beginning in late July, which led to dozens of deaths and displaced tens of thousands of people. On Friday, Abdul Khaleque, press secretary to the chief minister of Assam, told India Real Time that the death toll had risen to 78 as sporadic clashes continued. Of the 400,000 people that had fled their homes, approximately 115,000 had returned home.

As India has struggled this month to bring calm to Assam, flare-ups started taking place in the western city of Pune, while in Bangalore, thousands of northeastern workers began fleeing the city.

Mobile phone messages saying that northeasterners had been killed in Bangalore have been circulating since Sunday, said Dilip Kanti, a 24-year-old law student from Mizoram who has lived in the city in the southern state of Karnataka for six years.

“The messages warned that we should leave the city before the day of Eid,” he added. Monday, Aug. 20, is an official holiday for Eid, the festival that marks the end of Ramadan, the Muslim month of fasting.

The Karnataka state government and the police have said that this is a hoax message and that they are investigating the source of these messages.

The messages appear to be intended to panic northeasterners, send large numbers of them back to their home state, and foster fear of Muslims. Those developments could set the stage for sectarian riots, always a concern in a country that has seen such clashes break out frequently.

The home minister has said an inquiry is underway. But so far officials have not shared information about the source of these messages.

Presently, Indian companies that send mass text messages need to register to do so. But there’s no bar on individual users sending mass messages. A limit of 100 messagesper user per day was imposed last year in an attempt to reduce spam and later increased to 200, but this was overturned by the courts in July.

Text messages are the “most potent weapon of rumor,” said Shiv Visvanathan, a professor at the Jindal School of Government and Public Policy in Haryana. “They can multiply a few thousand times in a minute.”

India has been aware of the danger of high-tech rumor-mongering. When the verdict on the contested religious site of the Babri Masjid in Uttar Pradesh state was due in 2010, the Indian government temporarily banned the ability to send mass text messages.

But this time, with a new home minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde, who has only been in the job for a little more than two weeks, India was slower to act. It wasn’t till Friday afternoon – after the messages had been circulating for nearly a week – that India banned mass text messaging.

But by Wednesday, students and workers from the northeast who were living in Bangalore, where these messages circulated, were rushing to the train station to head home. On Thursday alone, two special trains were scheduled to take 6,000 people back to Guwahati, the capital of Assam.

Some of them had already experienced personal run-ins with Muslims upset about the riots in Assam. A 21-year-old student from the state of Nagaland, who didn’t want his name used, said that he is “sick of receiving these messages with rumors.” Apart from the messages, he said that he had been threatened twice in Bangalore by Muslims in the last five days but did not want to return to Nagaland and miss classes. His mother, on the other hand, is fearful for his safety and is forcing him to come back. His roommates have already left. “I will stay till Ramadan and if the situation doesn’t get better I will have no option but to leave,” he said.

The messages have gained potency from the fact that there have been some attacks on northeasterners in parts of India; these attacks too seem to have been intentionally instigated online.

Videos were doctored to show Muslims being tortured purportedly by ethnic Assamese, Pune police inspector Prasad Hasabnis told India Real Time.

“These incited the youth,” he added.

	Four students from the northeastern state of Manipur were attacked in Pune by young Muslim men in three separate incidents in the last week as a result, he said. In Mumbai, meanwhile, two people were killed and 65 injured after a protest over the suffering of Muslims in Assam turned violent. A group called the Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena (Bhagat Singh’s Revolution Army) has been spreading some of the rumors, said Laurence Liang, a researcher with the Alternate Law Forum, a Bangalore-based human rights group that also advocates free speech.

Four students from the northeastern state of Manipur were attacked in Pune by young Muslim men in three separate incidents in the last week as a result, he said. In Mumbai, meanwhile, two people were killed and 65 injured after a protest over the suffering of Muslims in Assam turned violent.

A group called the Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena (Bhagat Singh’s Revolution Army) has been spreading some of the rumors, said Laurence Liang, a researcher with the Alternate Law Forum, a Bangalore-based human rights group that also advocates free speech.

Mr. Liang said the group put up a post on Facebook that remained up until Wednesday. It said that a fatwa has been issued by the Muslims against people from the northeast and provided telephone numbers that didn’t work, he added. The Alternate Law Forum complained about the post to Facebook and it has since been taken down, he said.

“Technology is a double-edged sword,” says Mr. Liang. A few people use it to “rip up a frenzy of emotion by spreading rumors,” he says. He added that it didn’t help that “people in the United States and the United Kingdom, sitting in the safety of their homes, reply provocatively on social media, unaware of the consequences they unleash.”

Of course, some people are trying to use Twitter and Facebook to counter the rumors.

American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Sadanand Dhume tweeted on Friday that a video purporting to show violence in Assam was actually footage from Indonesia.

“I lived in Indonesia so recognized the policeman’s uniform, batik sarong & writing on baseball cap. Must be many more fake videos out there,” he said. (Mr. Dhume is an opinion columnist for The Wall Street Journal in India.)

And in a message on Facebook, Walter Fernandes, head of the North-Eastern Social Research Centre, said northeastern and Muslim associations were meeting in Bangalore to figure out how to quell the rumors, and that people shouldn’t give in to panic. Muslim leaders have promised to speak about the situation and the need to protect people from the northeast in their sermons, Mr. Fernandes wrote.

The Indian government last year attempted to censor social networking site like Facebook, arguing inflammatory content on the site could lead to violence in India. Facebook, Google and several other Internet firms are presently on trial in India for failing to remove offensive material from their sites in response to complaints. This month’s developments could help the government make a stronger case for censoring these sites.

But Pranesh Prakash, of the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society, says that greater regulation will not solve the problem. What he says is needed are proactive statements by the government and rigorous fact-checking by the media, especially regional news channels.

The only way of “countering rumors is by fact,” he said.

– Preetika Rana contributed to this post.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/blogs-wsj-com-aug-17-2012-shreya-shah-india-bans-mass-sms-to-counter-public

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

praskrishna — 2016-02-10T02:53:49Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India arrests professor over political cartoon

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T10:27:48Z

Sharing funny, satirical cartoons over the Internet can land you in court and even in jail these days in the world’s largest democracy. The article by Rama Lakshmi was published in Washington Post on April 13, 2012.

A chemistry professor, Ambikesh Mahapatra, from the Jadavpur University in the eastern Indian state of West Bengal, forwarded a cheeky cartoon strip to his friends that made fun of the state’s mercurial chief minister Mamata Banerjee. Late Thursday, the professor was beaten up by angry political workers of Banerjee’s party, Trinamool Congress, and later arrested by the state police.

Indian politicians appear to have become very touchy recently. In the past few months, the government clamped down on Web sites and social networking sites, such as Facebook and Google, for carrying defamatory cartoons and morphed images of senior politicians.

Banerjee, who ended a Communist party’s three-decades reign in West Bengal at the elections a year ago, has become the queen of controversies in the past month.

She first wanted the state’s school history textbooks to reduce the number of pages glorifying Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Then, she instructed 2,500 public libraries to buy only newspapers her government approved of.

Banerjee is also a partner in India’s national coalition government. She recently forced her party member Dinesh Trivedi, a national railway minister, to resign because he dared to raise rail passenger fares without consulting her. Mahapatra forwarded a cartoon that made fun of Banerjee sacking Trivedi.

On Friday, the professor’s arrest triggered outrage. Angry students in West Bengal’s capital Kolkata protested by pasting copies of the cartoon all over university walls. One TV commentator said that Banerjee had not only lost her sense of humor but had herself become a laughing stock.

The state’s “new-found aversion to non-believers has gone a bit too far,” said Pranesh Prakash, an Internet freedom activist at the Center for Internet and Society, of the response to the cartoon.

“[Banerjee’s] government wants to decide what people will read in public libraries, and tomorrow she will tell us what we should think,” said Brinda Karat, a lawmaker from the Communist Party of India (Marxist).

West Bengal’s transport minister Madan Mitra said “those who call themselves professors, if they do such ugly things, will never be forgiven.”

The chemistry professor was later released on bail, but not before he was charged with three crimes: humiliating and insulting the modesty of a woman, defamation and sending offensive messages through a computer.

Click to read the original

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-arrests-professor-over-cartoon

India ‘tea parties’ enable politicians to woo urban youth with technology

praskrishna — 2014-03-06T12:13:36Z

Babalal Patel’s tiny tea stall in southern Mumbai is a long way from Silicon Valley. It is not even that close to Bangalore, the Indian equivalent.

The article by Avantika Chilkoti was published in the Financial Times on February 26, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

But one night this month this ramshackle shop became the venue for a social media experiment that highlights the high-tech face of electioneering in India, the world’s largest democracy. A crowd gathered outside to watch two television screens showing a live broadcast with Narendra Modi, prime ministerial candidate for the opposition Bharatiya Janata party, as he answered questions the audience submitted by text message.

Similar “tea parties” were held across the country, designed to ram home Mr Modi’s humble background as a tea seller and his technological credentials. But the nationwide event, organised using mobile technology more commonly seen in US presidential campaigns, also signals a shift in Indian politics.

For decades, political campaigns in India have centred around colossal rallies and billboard advertising. But a growing population of young people, rising internet use and the ubiquity of mobile phones mean the 2014 battle is playing out equally fiercely online.

“We are moving far ahead of saying that we are building ‘likes’ on social media,” says Arvind Gupta, head of IT and social media for the BJP. “Organisation is being done using digital. So if I’m going to tell everybody there’s an event tomorrow, it can be posted on Facebook, websites, on SMS, on WhatsApp, though the real meeting is happening on the ground.”

These techniques, which became familiar during the Arab uprisings of northern Africa, are an increasingly important part of communication strategy ahead of a national election, which must be held in the next three months, and which many believe will be close.

Mr Gupta believes parties are fighting what he calls a “postmodern election” for up to 160 - largely urban - seats of the total 543. More than half the 50-strong team working on communication for the BJP are dedicated to digital campaigning.

India’s internet user base reached a point of inflection last year, passing 200m. While that is a fraction of the 1.3bn population, prompting many to question the power of social media, use is far greater among urban and young voters, millions of whom will be eligible to vote for the first time this year.

“Social media is suddenly becoming important, not for all constituencies but for urban constituencies because for the first time the urban youth and the educated class is very much glued into the election and showing interest,” says Rajeeva Karandikar, a statistician and election analyst.

Mr Modi, chief minister of Gujarat, has adapted particularly quickly to the changing environment. He captured the public imagination by using holograms to address rallies and Google Hangouts to interact with the diaspora. He has 3.4m Twitter followers and more than 10.6m “likes” on his Facebook page, thanks in part to a slick social media team led by high-profile technology entrepreneurs. Meanwhile Rahul Gandhi, the reticent, undeclared candidate for the incumbent Congress party, does not even have a verified Twitter account.

Some were disappointed by low attendance at the national “tea parties”, but the events were lauded for being interactive and, perhaps most importantly in a country where newspaper readership remains high, grabbed column inches in local media. The audience could speak directly to Mr Modi at venues with a two-way video link and the footage was immediately available on YouTube.

“While answering each question Mr Modi has a point of view,” says Pratik Patel, 28, a chartered accountant who organised the event at his grand- father’s tea shop. “He doesn’t have two ways of looking at the same thing - this helps him to be more decisive and forward thinking.”

Social media also provides swaths of information to India’s political parties, as they copy the sophisticated data analytics used by US president Barack Obama’s campaigns.

From its offices in suburban Mumbai, the digital marketing group Pinstorm tracks what social media users are discussing at the constituency level and identifies significant supporters or critics. It describes the service as an early warning system or “social radar”, which allows parties to mobilise workers rapidly to oppose or support a point of view.
Sceptics argue, however, that social media has insufficient traction in India to affect results of the forthcoming poll. But the size of the user base does not reflect its full power. It is educated influential Indians who use these digital networks and the online debate shapes views in traditional media that reach a wider audience.

“The theory is that since the elites are connected and have more time to spare on social media, let us use social media and the internet more generally to influence discourse through these elites,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director for the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society. “It’s an indirect route to the vote.”

An adviser to the Obama campaign warns, however, that, given differences in funding and the local environment, India’s politicians should be wary of using the US presidential race as a model. This year a simpler technology may prove the best tool for campaigns in India: the mobile phone.

“Folks look to the Obama campaign for this sort of stuff,” says Ethan Roeder, who worked on data for the 2008 and 2012 US presidential campaigns. “But a lot of these international campaigns would do best looking elsewhere for a model . . . No campaign in the history of the world has ever spent that much money to elect a single individual to a single office.”

India’s version is, of course, markedly cheaper, thanks to the roadside chai-wallahs and armies of volunteers, pulling in the new breed of voters.

“I have never attended a political rally in my entire life,” says Mr Patel, who helped organise Mr Modi’s nationwide “tea party”.

“If people want to connect with me they need to connect with me on social media or via email.”

Modi’s digital army

The team building the digital campaign for India’s opposition Bharatiya Janata party mixes entrepreneurs and veterans from the technology industry, rather than individuals with experience of electioneering alone.

Rajesh Jain, working on electoral technology, is well known in the industry since setting up successful businesses in online news and digital marketing. These include IndiaWorld Communications, a collection of websites which was bought in 1999 by Satyam Infoway, then India’s largest internet service provider.

He has the archetypal curriculum vitae, with a degree from one of the eminent Indian institutes of technology followed by a master’s degree from Columbia University in New York.

Arvind Gupta, who heads the BJP’s IT and social media cell, has a remarkably similar educational background - with an added stint in Silicon Valley to his name.

At the last count, the party had recruited more than 2m volunteers, who are organised online and will provide support in different ways. But there is also a younger generation of advocates who have given up good jobs to join the digital effort. Citizens for Accountable Governance is a non-profit youth organisation co-ordinating nationwide “tea parties” ahead of this year’s national election, where Narendra Modi, the party’s prime ministerial candidate, interacts with audiences at tea stalls via video link.

About 100 young professionals lead the operation and all come with impressive credentials, including jobs at prominent global consulting groups such as McKinsey, and banks such as JPMorgan.

Beyond that, Mr Modi has had a team working for him personally since he took over as chief minister of Gujarat more than a decade ago.

It is a discreet IT set-up that still functions independently of the party’s operations.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/financial-times-february-26-2014-india-tea-parties-enable-politicians-to-woo-urban-youth-with-technology

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

Indecent Proposals

praskrishna — 2012-02-14T06:13:22Z

If Kapil Sibal’s attempts to police net content fructify, it may even lead to a reversal of some of the forward-looking provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. The new proposal, for instance, will reverse Section 79 which protects intermediaries (websites and carriers) from being prosecuted or made liable for any objectionable content published. Says Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet and Society: “Unfortunately, what Sibal says turns this upside down as they would now be held responsible for e-content.” Sibal wants to monitor content prior to publication.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook Magazine on December 19, 2011. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in it.

While there are privacy concerns, any attempt to do real-time monitoring could pose serious legal complications. Says cyber law expert Pavan Duggal: “This proposition could be ultra vires of the Constitution which guarantees fundamental rights under Article 19, which is about freedom of speech and expression subject to reasonable restrictions.” And the reasonable restrictions for monitoring, blocking and interception of internet content are already built into the IT Act.

Says Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar: “If Sibal was really serious about protecting people, he should have read the IT Act that has a section which allows a victim to legally pursue his/her claim of defamation. If Sibal has his way, DoT bureaucrats will decide what content is ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’.”

“If Sibal was really serious, he should have read the IT Act...it has a section on how victims can pursue defamation claims.”

Moreover, the IT Intermediary Guideline Rules, 2011, though still provisional, mandate that once service providers receive instructions, they have to remove objectionable content within 36 hours. The Act also has other specific provisions like Section 69, which provides safeguards for interception, monitoring/decryption of information; Section 69A which gives procedures and safeguards for blocking access of information by the public; Section 69B for monitoring and collecting traffic data or information. There are also provisions for obscenity and defamation, with steep fines prescribed. Following these, the state has blocked 11 websites since ’09

However, what Sibal and his men would have seen is the Act’s inability to act on the content freely flowing in social media sites. Says Duggal: “The IT Act, 2000, was amended in ’08, but doesn’t talk about social media which came up only around that time. There is a need to bring social media within the ambit of the Act. What Sibal is suggesting doesn’t exist anywhere in the world.” Monitoring social media websites would also be a huge challenge as crores of messages and tweets are generated from India everyday.

And privacy? Experts say since India does not have dedicated legislation on privacy, the government could escape any attack on that front. Although some privacy elements were added to the IT Act in 2008, its scope is limited and the concept of data privacy is missing. In fact, the law doesn’t even recognise a person’s right to data privacy!.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/indecent-proposals

Inde: la tentative de contrôler l'internet est "illégale"

praskrishna — 2012-08-26T10:50:54Z

Des spécialistes de l'internet ont qualifié vendredi de "complètement illégale" la tentative du gouvernement indien de bloquer des messages et des vidéos soupçonnés d'avoir contribué à attiser de récentes tensions interethniques.

Published by AFP. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

"Les responsables qui ont été chargés de cela ne connaissent pas suffisamment bien la loi et la technologie moderne", a tancé Pranesh Prakash, un gestionnaire de programmes au sein du Centre de recherche sur l'internet (Centre for Internet and Society), dont le siège est à Bangalore (sud).

"C'est contre-productif. Je les accuse d'incompétence monumentale, le principal problème étant qu'ils sont très mal conseillés", a-t-il ajouté, interrogé par l'AFP.

Le gouvernement a demandé aux fournisseurs indiens de services internet de bloquer 309 pages, images et liens présentant un caractère "malfaisant", postés sur des sites tels que Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, la chaîne de télévision du Qatar, Al-Jazeera ou la chaîne australienne, ABC.

Des dizaines de milliers de personnes ont récemment fui les villes de Bangalore et de Bombay pour rentrer dans l'Etat de l'Assam (nord-est).

Cet exode a été déclenché par l'envoi de menaces sur les téléphones portables et l'internet affirmant que les Assamais seraient attaqués par des musulmans après la fin du ramadan, en représailles à de récentes violences interethniques qui ont opposé les deux communautés dans cet Etat reculé de l'Inde.

Dans un communiqué, la chaîne de télévision ABC s'est dit "surprise" des mesures gouvernementales après la demande de retrait d'un de ses reportages sur les violences entre musulmans et bouddhistes en Birmanie.

Vivek Sood, avocat auprès de la Cour suprême et auteur d'une loi sur l'internet, a pour sa part jugé que la démarche du gouvernement était illégale.

"C'est complètement illégal en vertu de de la loi indienne sur les hautes technologies. C'est un abus de pouvoir", a-t-il dit au quotidien The Economic Times.

Le gouvernement a toutefois assuré vendredi que son but n'était pas de restreindre les échanges sur internet.

"C'est un succès. Ces pages étaient une menace à la sécurité nationale de l'Inde et nous avons demandé leur suppression immédiate", a commenté auprès de l'AFP un porte-parole du ministère de l'Intérieur, Kuldeep Singh Dhatwalia.

"La propagation de rumeurs encourageant la violence ou provoquant des tensions ne sera pas tolérée. L'idée n'est pas de restreindre la communication", a-t-il assuré.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/http-www-google-com-hostednews-afp-inde-la-tentative-de-controler-i-internet-est-illegale

Incident Response Requirements in Indian Law

vipul — 2016-12-28T01:19:28Z

Cyber incidents have serious consequences for societies, nations, and those who are victimised by them. The theft, exploitation, exposure or otherwise damage of private, financial, or other sensitive personal or commercial data and cyber attacks that damage computer systems are capable of causing lasting harm.

A recent example of such an attack that we have seen from India is the recent data breach involving an alleged 3.2 million debit cards in India.^[1] In the case of this hack the payment processing networks such as National Payments Corporation of India, Visa and Mastercard, informed the banks regarding the leaks, based on which the banks started the process of blocking and then reissuing the compromised cards. It has also been reported that the banks failed to report this incident to the Computer Emergency Response Team of India (CERT-In) even though they are required by law to do so.^[2] Such risks are increasingly faced by consumers, businesses, and governments. A person who is a victim of a cyber incident usually looks to receive assistance from the service provider and government agencies, which are prepared to investigate the incident, mitigate its consequences, and help prevent future incidents. It is essential for an effective response to cyber incidents that authorities have as much knowledge regarding the incident as possible and have that knowledge as soon as possible. It is also critical that this information is communicated to the public. This underlines the importance of reporting cyber incidents as a tool in making the internet and digital infrastructure secure.. Like any other crime, an Internet-based crime should be reported to those law enforcement authorities assigned to tackle it at a local, state, national, or international level, depending on the nature and scope of the criminal act. This is the first in a series of blog posts highlighting the importance of incident reporting in the Indian regulatory context with a view to highlight the Indian regulations dealing with incident reporting and the ultimate objective of having a more robust incident reporting environment in India.

Incident Reporting under CERT Rules

In India, section 70-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the “IT Act”) gives the Central Government the power to appoint an agency of the government to be called the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team. In pursuance of the said provision the Central Government issued the Information Technology (The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team and Manner of Performing Functions and Duties) Rules, 2013 (the “CERT Rules”) which provide the location and manner of functioning of the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In). Rule 12 of the CERT Rules gives every person, company or organisation the option to report cyber security incidents to the CERT-In. It also places an obligation on them to mandatorily report the following kinds of incidents as early as possible:

Targeted scanning/probing of critical networks/systems;
Compromise of critical systems/information;
Unauthorized access of IT systems/data;
Defacement of website or intrusion into a website and unauthorized changes such as inserting malicious code, links to external websites, etc.;
Malicious code attacks such as spreading of virus/worm/Trojan/botnets/spyware;
Attacks on servers such as database, mail, and DNS and network devices such as routers;
Identity theft, spoofing and phishing attacks;
Denial of Service (DoS) and Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks;
Attacks on critical infrastructure, SCADA systems and wireless networks;
Attacks on applications such as e-governance, e-commerce, etc.

The CERT Rules also impose an obligation on service providers, intermediaries, data centres and body corporates to report cyber incidents within a reasonable time so that CERT-In may have scope for timely action. This mandatory obligation of reporting incidents casts a fairly wide net in terms of private sector entities, however it is notable that prima facie the provision does not impose any obligation on government entities to report cyber incidents unless they come under any of the expressions “service providers”, “data centres”, “intermediaries” or “body corporate”. This would mean that if the data kept with the Registrar General & Census Commissioner of India is hacked in a cyber incident, then there is no statutory obligation under the CERT Rules on it to report the incident. It is pertinent to mention here that although there is no obligation on a government department under law to report such an incident, such an obligation may be contained in its internal rules and guidelines, etc. which are not readily available.

It is pertinent to note that although the CERT Rules provide for a mandatory obligation to report the cyber incidents listed therein, the Rules themselves do not provide for any penalty for non compliance. However this does not mean that there are no consequences for non compliance, it just means that we have to look to the parent legislation i.e. the IT Act for the appropriate penalties for non compliance. Section 70B(6) gives the CERT-In the power to call for information and give directions for the purpose of carrying out its functions. Section 70B(7) provides that any service provider, intermediary, data center, body corporate or person who fails to provide the information called for or comply with the direction under sub-section (6), shall be liable to imprisonment for a period up to 1 (one) year or fine of up to 1 (one) lakh or both.

It is possible to argue here that sub-section (6) only talks about calls for information by CERT-In and the obligation under Rule 12 of the CERT Rules is an obligation placed by the central government and not CERT-In. It can also be argued that sub-section (6) is only meant for specific requests made by CERT-In for information and sub-section (7) only penalises those who do not respond to these specific requests. However, even if these arguments were to be accepted and we were to conclude that a violation of the obligation imposed under Rule 12 would not attract the penalty stipulated under sub-section (7) of section 70B, that does not mean that Rule 12 would be left toothless. Section 44(b) of the IT Act provides that where any person is required under any of the Rules or Regulations under the IT Act to furnish any information within a particular time and such person fails to do so, s/he may be liable to pay a penalty of upto Rs. 5,000/- for every day such failure continues. Further section 45 provides for a further penalty of Rs.25,000/- for any contravention of any of the rules or regulations under the Act for which no other penalty has been provided.

Incident Reporting under Intermediary Guidelines

Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act defined the term “intermediary” in the following manner;

“intermediary” with respect to any particular electronic record, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online market places and cyber cafes.

Rule 3(9) of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (the “Intermediary Guidelines”) also imposes an obligation on any intermediary to report any cyber incident and share information related to cyber security incidents with the CERT-In. Since neither the Intermediary Guidelines not the IT Act specifically provide for any penalty for non conformity with Rule 3(9) therefore any enforcement action against an intermediary failing to report a cyber security incident would have to be taken under section 45 of the IT Act containing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.

Incident Reporting under the Unified License

Clause 39.10(i) of the Unified License Agreement obliges the telecom company to create facilities for the monitoring of all intrusions, attacks and frauds on its technical facilities and provide reports on the same to the Department of Telecom (DoT). Further clause 39.11(ii) provides that for any breach or inadequate compliance with the terms of the license, the telecom company shall be liable to pay a penalty amount of Rs. 50 crores (Rs. 50,00,00,000) per breach.

Conclusion

It is clear from the above discussion that there is a legal obligation service providers to report cyber incidents to the CERT-In. Presently, the penalty prescribed under Indian law may not be enough to incentivise companies to adopt comprehensive and consistent incident response programmes. , except in cases of telecom companies under the Unified License Agreement. A fine of Rs. 25,000/- appears to be inconsequential when compared to the possible dangers and damages that may be caused due to a security breach of data containing, for example, credit card details.. Further, it is also imperative that apart from the obligation to report the cyber incident to the appropriate authorities (CERT-In) there should also be a legal obligation to report it to the data subjects whose data is stolen or is put at risk due to the said breach. A provision requiring notice to the data subjects could go a long way in ensuring that service providers, intermediaries, data centres and body corporates implement the best data security practices since a breach would then be known by general consumers leading to a flurry of bad publicity which could negatively impact the business of the data controller, and for a business entity an economic stimulus may be an effective way to ensure compliance.

As we continue to research incident response, the questions and areas we are exploring include the ecosystem of incidence response including what is reported, how, and when, appropriate incentives to companies and governments to report incidents, various forms of penalties, the role of cross border sharing of information and jurisdiction and best practices for incident reporting and citizen awareness.

Published under Creative Commons License CC BY-SA. Anyone can distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon this document, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the creator of this document and license their new creations under the terms identical to the license governing this document

^[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/10/21/atm-card-hack-what-banks-are-saying-about-india-s-biggest-data/

^[2] http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/cert-in-had-warned-banks-on-oct-7-about-expected-targeted-attacks-from-pakistan/54991025

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/incident-response-requirements-in-indian-law

In Twitter India’s Arbitrary Suspensions, a Question of What Constitutes a Public Space

torsha — 2019-12-12T16:54:05Z

A discussion is underway about the way social media platforms may have to operate within the tenets of constitutional protections of free speech.

The article by Torsha Sarkar was published in the Wire on December 7, 2019.

On October, 26 2019, Twitter suspended the account of senior advocate Sanjay Hegde. The reason? He had previously put up the famous photo of August Landmesser refusing to do the Nazi salute in a sea of crowd in the Blohm Voss shipyard.

According to the social media platform, the image violated Twitter’s ‘hateful imagery’ guidelines, despite the photo being around for decades and usually being recognised as a sign of resistance against blind authoritarianism.

August Landmesser. Photo: Public Domain

Twitter briefly revoked the suspension on October 27, but promptly suspended Hegde’s account again. This time, the action was prompted by Hegde quote-tweeting parts of a poem by Gorakh Pandey, titled ‘Hang him’, which was written in protest of the first death penalties given to two peasant revolutionaries in an independent India. This time, Hegde was informed that his account would not be restored.

Spurred by what he believed was Twitter’s arbitrary exercise of power, he proceeded to file a legal notice with Twitter, and asked the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to intervene in the matter. It is the subject matter of this ask that becomes of interest.

In his complaint, Hegde first outlines how the content shared by him did not violate any of Twitter’s community guidelines. He then goes on to highlight how his fundamental right of dissemination and receipt of information under Article 19(1)(a) were obstructed by the action of Twitter. Here, he places reliance to several key decisions of the Indian and the US Supreme court on media freedom, which provided thrust to his argument that a citizen’s right to free speech is meaningless if control was concentrated in the hands of a few private parties.

Vertical or horizontal?

One of the first things we learn about fundamental rights is that they are enforceable against the government, and that they allow the individual to have a remedy against the excesses of the all-powerful state. This understanding of fundamental rights is usually called the ‘vertical’ approach – where the state, or the allied public authority is at the top and the individual, a non-public entity is at the bottom.

However, there is another, albeit underdeveloped, thread of constitutional jurisprudence that argues that in certain circumstances these rights can be claimed against another private entity. This is called the ‘horizontal’ application of fundamental rights.

In that note, Hegde’s contention essentially becomes this – claiming an enforceable remedy against the private entity for supposedly violating his fundamental right. This is clearly an ask for the Centre to consider a horizontal application of Article 19(1)(a) against large social media companies.

What could this mean?

Lawyer Gautam Bhatia has argued that there are several ways in which a fundamental right can be enforced against another private entity. It must be noted that he derives this classification on the touchstone of existing judicial decisions, which is different from seeking an executive intervention. Nevertheless, it is interesting to consider the logic of his arguments as a thought exercise. Bhatia points out that one of the ways in which fundamental rights can be applied to a private entity is by assimilating the concerned entity as a ‘state’ as per Article 12.

There is a considerable amount of jurisprudence on the nature of the test to determine whether the assailed entity is state. In 2002, the Supreme Court held that for an entity to be deemed state, it must be ‘functionally, financially and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government’. If we go by this test, then a social media platform would most probably not come within the ambit of Article 12.

However, there is a thread of recent developments that might be interesting to consider. Earlier this year, a federal court of appeals in the US ruled that the First Amendment prohibits President Donald Trump, who used his Twitter for government purposes, from blocking his critics. The court further held that when a public official uses their account for official purposes, then the account ceases to be a mere private account. This judgment has a sharp bearing in the current discussion, and the way social media platforms may have to operate within the tenets of constitutional protections of free speech.

Although the opinion of the federal court clearly noted that they did not concern themselves with the application of the First Amendment rights to the social media platforms, one cannot help but wonder – if the court rules that certain spaces in a social media account are ‘public’ by default, and that politicians cannot exclude critiques from those spaces, then can the company itself block or impede certain messages? If the company does it, can an enforceable remedy then be made against them?

A US court ruled that Donald Trump cannot block people on his Twitter account. Photo: Reuters

What can be done?

Of course, there is no straight answer to this question. On one hand, social media platforms, owing to the enormous concentration of power and opaque moderating policies, have become gatekeepers of online speech to a large extent. If such power is left unchecked, then, as Hegde’s request demonstrates, a citizen’s free speech rights are meaningless.

On the other hand, if we definitively agree that in certain circumstances, citizens should be allowed to claim remedies against these companies’ arbitrary exercise of power, then are we setting ourselves for a slippery slope? Would we make exceptions to the nature of spaces in the social media based on who is using it? If we do, then what would be the extent to which we would limit the company’s power of regulating speech in such space? How would such limitation work in consonance with the company’s need to protect public officials from targeted harassment?

At this juncture, given the novelty of the situation, our decisions should also be measured. One way of addressing this obvious paradigm shift is by considering the idea of oversight structures more seriously.

I have previously written about the possibility of having an independent regulator as a compromise between overtly stern government regulation and allowing social media companies to have free reign over the things that go on their platforms. In light of the recent events, this might be a useful alternative to consider.

Hegde had also asked the MeitY to issue guidelines to ensure that any censorship of speech in these social media platforms is to be done in accordance with the principles of Article 19.

If we presume that certain social media platforms are large and powerful enough to be treated akin to public spaces, then having an oversight authority to arbitrate and ensure the enforcement of constitutional principles for future disputes may just be the first step towards more evidence-based policymaking.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-torsha-sarkar-december-7-2019-twitter-arbitrary-suspension-public-space

In the Right Circle

praskrishna — 2011-08-23T07:40:57Z

I’ve been on Google Plus for a few weeks now. In the beginning, it felt like showing up early at a much-talked-up party. There was a small scatter of people, poking around, examining the place, making preliminary conversation with the few others they knew. Most of the talk was, unsurprisingly, about Google Plus.

Unlike the crash-bang disaster of Google Buzz, its awkward attempt at social networking that alienated most users by publicly exposing their contact list, and then proceeded from error to error, Google Plus has been a low-key, careful affair.

In the first two weeks, Google calibrated entry, depending on its capacity — letting early adopters and "power users" examine the platform and tell them what’s missing, and what works.

Google Plus mimics the real world, where people interact in clusters, and relate outwards in concentric circles of trust, rather than Facebook’s megaphone model. You drag and drop people into different circles, and can either mark individual posts to specific circles and combinations (‘family’ ‘college buddies’, ‘artsy types’), or make them public to everyone. You can catch up on these circles separately, and toggle between your many worlds, or choose to read the great river of updates on your “public" stream. Google Plus shows you a civilised way of arranging your acquaintances, avoiding that playground-level, plaintive, Facebook question: "why am I in your limited profile?"

In concept, Facebook also lets you slice your social world with friend lists, but it’s a tedious labour that few have undertaken. Design is everything — and Facebook was clearly not built for such fine-grained customisation, because everything about its default settings pointed the other way. In fact, its young CEO Mark Zuckerberg seemed to think an attachment to privacy was some faintly embarrassing, vestigial trait — the sooner we accept its obsolescence, the better.

Facebook has a remarkably flat view of friendship. If your Facebook friends are too wide and various, it can make you clam up, conscious of what a few people might think. Most people, as social media scholar danah boyd has noted, tend to focus on a part of their network, mentally blocking out the rest.

"I’d like to have separate interactions with my mother, my friends, my students and my university colleagues without bombarding my colleagues with my vacation pictures or boring my mother with research chatter," says Mallesh Pai, an academic who works on the economics of the internet. "Plus actually lets me do that."

Facebook works with the fiction that there is a single self you present to the world – while, in fact, you are a posse of selves. You might be the naïve seeker in some contexts, the voice of authority in others. In the real world, you read others by their voice and expression, factor in their situations, and modulate your own speech accordingly. But in Facebookland, you talk at an invisible audience. The problem of “collapsed contexts”, and the anxiety of audience is Facebook’s most obvious flaw, and Google Plus has focused squarely on that aspect. It obviously works best for those who are acutely aware of social role-play and judgment. Many people may claim not to care about finessing their personalities to different audiences, or see the point of migrating to a new platform —but once you wrap your head around the rich, real-world aspect of Google Plus, it’s hard to imagine why you’d want to stay on Facebook.

But it’s not just Facebook that Plus directly takes on — Twitter could also take a direct hit. The “following” circle lets you add people you don’t know personally, and see all their public posts. “Sometimes, it’s weird to realise you’re being followed by so many people you don’t know, but like on Twitter, it seems like too much effort to edit the list. Thankfully, there aren’t any spambots on Plus yet,” says Pranesh Prakash, a lawyer and policy advocate at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society. There’s no arbitrary 140-character limit, and there are coherent threads of conversation — in fact, the level of visible engagement on Plus makes Twitter look like “a boring RSS reader”, as someone observed.

Apart from the Facebook and Twitter-type uses, Google Plus comes with a standout feature that’s all its own: Hangouts, spontaneous video chatting with up to 10 people. You start a hangout, and anyone may drop in to talk for a bit. “It’s trying to replicate the sort of gathering you have in a coffee shop, just drop in and chat about the news or whatever,” says Pai. It’s so obviously useful that Dell is reportedly considering dropping traditional customer service calls and choosing to hang out with Google instead. Yes, Facebook has recently teamed up with Skype in a self-declared "awesome" move — but Skype still makes you pay for multi-way video conferencing, and doesn’t offer the serendipitous pleasures of Hangout yet.

Then there is Sparks, Google Plus’s attempt to push the right content at you – you pick from a variety of interests, and Google supplies a steady scroll of interesting links. Given how much info the company has on people, Sparks could become eerily spot-on.

In fact, the chief problem with Google Plus may be that it tries to cram in too much, leaving users overwhelmed. The bewildering array of buttons and options may put off some, and right now, it’s difficult to control the signal-to-noise ratio. “It’s definitely not as over-complicated as Google Wave, which nobody could really figure out” says Pai. “And honestly, it would be difficult to imagine the kind of functionality that Plus provides being delivered in any other way.” Then there are some who are sceptical of Circles — saying that greater granularity isn’t going to take away the dilemmas of talking to a group. They predict that once the novelty wears off and Google Plus expands, you’ll be struggling to edit and divide your circles, and to pitch yourself right.

So will Google Plus lure 750 million-plus Facebook and Twitter users away? "Don’t underestimate Facebook’s network benefits," says Prakash. “When I first went online in 1996, the first thing to do was to create an email address. Now the first thing that people do to mark an online entry is to create a Facebook account”.

Besides, Google may not want to supplant Facebook as much as master an arena it has so far sucked at – the social world. As Pranesh Prakash says, “it’s not about competition with Facebook, as much as trying to improve Google’s own services, bring them together into a seamless whole and better understand its users.” Making social life machine-readable would obviously be the next big jackpot for Google, and it appears determined to invest the time, resources and effort to getting it exactly right. As Shimrit Ben-Yair, product manager of the social graph at Google told Wired magazine’s Stephen Levy, Google Plus could be a revolutionary service if it hits the sweet spot between Facebook oversharing and Twitter undersharing.

Besides, most would agree that a spot of vigorous competition would be good for Facebook, which has played fast and loose with privacy policy — changing its defaults, and then reacting to the outcry that follows. "For too long, it was the only game in town. Facebook has innovated more in the three weeks that Plus has been around, than in a lon time," says Pai.

So far, Google Plus has been extra-solicitous of privacy, and adjusted on the fly to field testers’ feedback. It has jumped to attend to mistakes – like responding to complaints that a user’s gender should not be publicly available. When someone pointed out that even limited posts could be reshared by others, that technical hole was immediately plugged. "It’s very heartening to see that they’ve learnt from the mistakes of Facebook and Buzz," says Prakash. Unlike Facebook’s possessiveness about your information and pictures, Google’s Data Liberation policy is explicitly committed to letting you erase all personal traces whenever you want, and free yourself from any product.

But as Prakash cautions, "Google may not have a coherent view of privacy across all its products — for all Google Plus’s delicacy and tact, Google Street View may have different ideas about what is acceptable." There are many who find it unnerving that a revenue-driven, publicly traded company should be the master switch of our information economy. Given Google’s girth and dominance, competitors can’t realistically wrest attention away, after a certain point.

"Google is bigger because it’s better and better because it’s bigger", writes Siva Vaidyanathan in The Googlization of Everything. Google Plus, then, marks another large advance in the company’s stated mission to organise the world’s information. Even Pai admits that “if a new mail application came along, it would have to offer so much more than Google for me to consider shifting – given how Gmail does everything, syncs my calendar, knows my friends." But then again, he says, “Let’s judge Google not on what we think it is, but what it does. Everything that’s too big in a bad way, even those considered invincible, gets stopped eventually. Right now, I’m reading about Murdoch’s undoing with great glee – a few weeks back, who would have imagined that?"

This article by Amulya Gopalakrishnan was published in the Indian Express on July 24, 2011. The original story can be read here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/right-circle

In The Biggest Data Leak, Info Of 13 Crore Aadhaar Card Holders Has Been Compromised And Is Available Online

praskrishna — 2017-05-12T15:59:31Z

The Modi government has been trying to make Aadhaar mandatory for everything from Income Tax return, buying a SIM card, bank transaction, train ticket, air travel, mid-day meal government subsidies etc.

The blog post by Bobins Abraham was published by India Times on May 3, 2017.

While the government claims that the move will increase security and ensure that the benefits are reaching to real people and not syphoned off. But security experts have been pointing out the possibility of security breach in the system resulting in the sensitive biometric data reaching in the hands of those, who could misuse them.

A study by Bengaluru-based think tank, Centre for Internet and Society has once again cemented these concerns. According to its report titled, "Information Security Practices of Aadhaar (or lack thereof): A documentation of the public availability of Aadhaar Numbers with sensitive personal financial information," Aadhaar data of as many as 13.5 crore card holders have already leaked online.

The study revealed that the mass data leak happened due to security flaws in four government websites:

National Social Assistance Programme
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA)
Daily Online Payment Reports under NREGA (Govt. of Andhra Pradesh)
Chandranna Bima Scheme run by Government of Andhra Pradesh

“Based on the numbers available on the websites looked at, estimated number of Aadhaar numbers leaked through these four portals could be around 130-135 million and the number of bank account numbers leaked at around 100 million from the specific portals we looked at,” the report said.

The report was published even as the government continue to defend Aadhaar in the Supreme Court saying that the move to link Aadhaar with PAN cards was meant to put a stop on the number of individuals in possession of multiple PAN cards by putting a robust identification system in place. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said that this will help in curbing money laundering, the flow of black money and controlling the funding of terror.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-times-bobin-abraham-may-3-2017-in-the-biggest-data-leak-info-of-13-crore-aadhaar-card-holders-has-been-compromised-and-is-available-online

In Parts of India, Internet Shutdowns Are a Fact of Life

Megha Bahree — 2019-05-27T15:43:53Z

Fears of a censored internet are rising, as the government cites fake news and unlawful content in blocking internet access.

The article by Megha Bahree was published in Top10 VPN on May 21, 2019. Gurshabad Grover was quoted.

In 2017, Faakirah Suraiya Irfan, a lawyer and mental health counselor in the northern Indian state of Kashmir, was online with a patient when the internet went down. In the restive state the government frequently, and without any warning, shuts down the internet, so it was not an unusual occurrence. But for Irfan, who was employed by women’s career networking platform Sheroes to offer online counseling services to its members, the interruption couldn’t have come at a worse time. She was in the midst of talking a patient out of suicidal thoughts.

“At that point when you lose the network, you just lose the person,” said Irfan. “I’m talking, and I’m in a flow and trying to get them to open up but then in the middle of that the internet is shut down.”

Irfan quit her job after a year because “the work was through the internet and [owing to the frequent network shutdowns] it just wasn’t working.”

Internet, interrupted

In the last couple of years India has seen a phenomenal increase in the number of people coming online thanks to an explosion of cheap data and affordable smartphones. With more than 500 million people online, it has the second largest number of internet users in the world, after China.

But that growth has been accompanied by the usual sins of abuse, including a rise in online trolls and the spread of fake news. New Delhi has responded with a heavy hand. It has implemented internet shutdowns, banned apps and blocked hundreds of websites. Unsurprisingly, all of this has led to increasing fears of censorship in the world’s largest democracy.

India leads the world in the number of internet shutdowns, with over 100 reported incidents in 2018 alone, according to the latest Freedom On The Net report. The study tracks internet freedom in 65 countries, covering 87 percent of the world’s internet users, and addresses internet access, freedom of expression, and privacy issues. The report followed events between June 2017 and May 2018 and India came in as “partly free” with a score of 43 out of 100.

“There’s a censorship process underway in India,” said Apar Gupta, a lawyer and executive director of Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), an organization that works to defend net neutrality, freedom and privacy. “There’s a complete lack of transparency on what’s being done, why and who’s doing this.”

Shutdown throughout elections

India has just concluded the world’s largest general election with over 900 million people eligible to vote. But ongoing internet shutdowns prevented many people from accessing information as they prepared to cast their ballot.

Over the voting period of April 11 to May 19, the states of Rajasthan, West Bengal and Kashmir reported mobile internet shutdowns. News agency UNI reported that in April, authorities in parts of north Kashmir suspended internet services of all cellular providers in the region as it went to poll. This came two days after a shutdown in another region in Kashmir. The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), a legal services organization that aims to protect digital freedom and which tracks internet shutdowns across the country, found there have been 30 shutdowns in the state so far this year, and 40 across the country.

“There’s a complete lack of transparency on what’s being done, why and who’s doing this.” – Apar Gupta

Shutdowns have a couple of provisions in law, says Gupta. One was passedin 2017 and empowers both the federal and the state government to suspend telecom services, and by extension, internet services. The other – which prohibits public gatherings – dates back to when the British ruled the country. The law was initially used to prevent Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the leader of India’s independence struggle, from organizing protest marches and now is regularly used to restrict internet access. The latter is more frequently used as it allows even local authorities to issue orders for shutdowns without a review process, says Mishi Choudhary, legal director of SFLC.

IFF’s Gupta says these shutdowns “disturb the constitutional protection for free expression.” He adds: “Such a disproportionate action beyond legal doctrine practically disrupts daily life to a severe degree and causes immense hardship. It provokes anxiety among families who talk to each, causes business losses and reduces the political freedom in a country.”

History of services suspended

In India, internet shutdowns began somewhere around 2012, picked up pace from 2015 and peaked in 2018. According to the New Delhi think tank Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, the internet was shut down for a total of 16,315 hours between 2012 and 2017, costing the economy approximately $3.04 billion.

Shutdowns can be partial—when a specific class of websites are blocked, like all internet messaging sites—or complete when the entire internet is cut off. Kashmir has the dubious honor of the highest number of shutdowns at 155 to date, according to the SFLC.

The longest shutdown in the country occurred in Kashmir in the summer of 2016 after a local rebel was killed that July. Mobile internet services were suspended for 133 days. While internet services on postpaid connections were restored by November, users with prepaid connections got their internet access back only in January 2017, nearly six months after they had been cut off.

The second longest suspension of internet services took place in Darjeeling in eastern India in June 2017 during a local secessionist agitation. Initially, just the mobile internet services were shut off but within a couple of days, the broadband services were cut off as well, according to SFLC’s tracker. Ultimately there were no internet services in Darjeeling for a total of one hundred days.

In both cases, it wasn’t clear who ordered the shutdown, as reflected in local media reports. Typically, shutdowns happen without any warning and in most cases the only explanation offered is that services were suspended “as a precautionary measure to maintain law and order”.

In a country where internet usage has risen dramatically in the last few years, the shutdowns have been “a blunt instrument to bring the digital economy to its knees and deprive the citizens the freedom to communicate,” says Choudhary.

In the summer of 2016, mobile internet in Kashmir was shut off for four months.

India’s data explosion

It was a new telecom entrant that drastically changed the dynamics of the country’s internet access, and brought vast numbers of people online.

In September 2016, Reliance Industries, which is owned by India’s richest man, Mukesh Ambani, launched 4G network Jio. The network allowed subscribers to use internet plans to make calls, send text messages or browse the internet, and it jump-started the business by offering its services for free initially. Once it started charging for data, its rates were incredibly cheap. A year later it offered low-cost 4G handsets for a refundable security deposit of $22. In 2018 it offered a 4G phone for a third of that price. The strategy helped it gain millions of users, and encouraged the transition from feature phones to smartphones, giving users easy access to the internet.

“The internet shutdowns are a blunt instrument to bring the digital economy to its knees.” – Mishi Choudhary

Rajakumari Dayamenti, a native of Sabantongba village in the north eastern state of Manipur, was one such user. Before Jio set up a cellphone tower in her village, Dayamenti plugged a 10-meter-long USB extension cord into a Huawei modem that she stuck on her rooftop, creating her own mini tower to get online.

Cheap data and the millions of new users also ensured the rise of apps, with entertainment becoming one of the biggest drivers. Users in the big Indian cities have flocked to the same apps as their peers across the globe, including Apple Music, Spotify, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook and WhatsApp. In the smaller cities, however, consumers have turned to more local and regional social networking apps like ShareChat and to apps that offer free content like Wynk, Gaana and Hotstar, Star India’s mobile and digital entertainment platform. For news, users turn to Facebook as well as UC News and Dailyhunt.

Disrupting daily life

Lateef Mushtaq, a native of Kashmir who is pursuing an undergraduate degree in technology in Delhi, has experienced internet disruptions countless times, he says. Mushtaq was on a two-week internship in Kashmir last July with state-owned telecom company BSNL to measure internet speeds in different areas when the internet was shut down. The company had to extend the internship to six weeks so he could complete the project.

More recently in February he was home and was scheduled to take an exam online when a suicide bomber blew up a convoy of vehicles carrying security personnel, killing at least 40 in an area called Pulwama. India blamed archenemy and the neighboring state of Pakistan, which denied the allegations.

In the midst of escalating tensions between the two nuclear armed neighbors, the internet speed in Mushtaq’s area was reduced to 2G. But he still had to take his exam, a frustrating experience as he found that the same page was being reloaded after he would submit his responses instead of moving forward to the next set of questions.

“I was submitting my answers, but it kept going back to the previous page,” he says. “I kept answering the same questions again and again.” Mushtaq couldn’t finish the paper and scored 63 percent on it. He says he could’ve done much better.

“In Delhi the internet is never shut down so when it happens to me now, I feel like I’m locked down in a single room without access to the world,” he says.

Finding any available network

While mobile phone services are disrupted frequently, the government occasionally spares the state-run BSNL as the armed forces also use this service. Mushtaq has in the past tried to get a BSNL broadband connection but without success. These connections are prized possessions and Kashmiri teenagers develop hacking skills early in an effort to ride on any broadband network when the government shuts their mobile services down.

“If we hear about a house with broadband, we try to crack the password,” admits Mushtaq. Networks that are secured on WiFi Protected Access (WPA) security standard are easy to crack and there are several apps on the Google play store that help with that, says Mushtaq.

When it’s just some sites or apps have been blocked, Mushtaq and his friends have turned to virtual private networks (VPNs) or proxy services to find a way around the blocks, he says.

Internet shutdowns have cost India’s economy approximately $3.04 billion

But during a complete shutdown none of these workarounds do the trick, as Musthtaq found last year. He had to drive to another part of Kashmir where the internet was still working to check his score for an important entrance exam. Once he got the signal on his phone, he pulled up and sat on the roadside waiting for the website to load.

Similarly, during the 100-day shutdown in Darjeeling, Nirmal Tamang drove his daughter on his motorcycle more than 40 miles to another city where the internet was working so she could fill forms online to apply for undergraduate studies.

Battling ‘unlawful’ content

Rumors or provocative messaging on social media and instant messaging platforms have often been cited as reasons to order internet restrictions.

One critical issue involved the spate of mob attacks in India in the past couple years, fueled by widely circulated messages such as reports of strangers abducting children.

According to an analysis by IndiaSpend, a data journalism website, between January 1, 2017, and July 5, 2018 33 people were killed and at least 99 injured in 69 reported cases of mobs attacking people they suspected were planning to abduct children. In all the cases, the charges turned out to be baseless, with 77 percent of the reports based on fake news that had spread through social media.

With at least 200 million users in India, WhatsApp was one of the mediums through which these rumors spread, and in the aftermath of the violence, came to be a poster child for fake news.

New Delhi responded by asking the platform to take responsibility for the messages circulating on it, stating: “Such a platform cannot evade accountability and responsibility especially when good technological inventions are abused by some miscreants who resort to provocative messages which lead to spread of violence.” It added, “WhatsApp must take immediate action to end this menace and ensure that their platform is not used for such mala fide activities.” (In response, last July WhatsApp introduced a limit in India on the number of times a user could forward a message to five. It has now imposed that limit on the rest of the world as well.)

Since then, the Indian government has proposed rules that would force internet companies to remove content from their platforms. In late December, it issued a draft policy of rules intended to curb the misuse of social media and stop the spreading of fake news.

Apar Gupta likens the government’s proposal to “Chinese style censorship that would weaken free expression”

Under the policy, the government has proposed an amendment to Section 79 of India’s IT Act, which would require internet companies to take down content deemed inappropriate by authorities. And if a company receives a complaint from a law enforcement agency, it would be required to trace and report it within 72 hours and to disable that user’s access within 24 hours. Should this amendment go through, it would effectively break the end-to-end encryption that secures user communications on platforms like WhatsApp.

Another recommendation in the draft policy says that internet companies will have to purge their platforms of “unlawful” content. However, the policy doesn’t clearly define what makes something “unlawful”, raising concerns that the clause could be easily abused by authorities to remove any content they wish.

Internet companies and privacy advocates say the new measures, if implemented, pose a threat to free speech and would encourage censorship.

It’s “plainly unconstitutional,” says Gurshabad Grover, policy officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, a nonprofit organization. “By mandating online platforms to detect and remove “unlawful content” through automation, the draft rules shift the burden of judging whether content is legal from the state to private organizations. They will only lead to a great chilling effect on speech, and a regime of online censorship regulated by private parties,” he says.

IFF’s Gupta likens the proposal to “Chinese style censorship that would weaken free expression standards” and his organization has asked for a complete rollback of the proposal.

Website censorship on the rise

Large-scale disruptions and intentional slowdowns are not the only tools employed by the government to exert control over the internet. Specific websites and apps are also sporadically blocked.

In April 2017, in the wake of massive student protests in Kashmir, the state government banned access to 22 social media apps including Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Snapchat, Skype, Telegram and WeChat, for a month.

Two experts at the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner said the restrictions had “a significantly disproportionate impact on the fundamental rights of everyone in Kashmir,” and that they “fail to meet the standards required under international human rights law to limit freedom of expression.”

Another crackdown targeted the country’s 827 porn websites. In India it is not illegal to watch porn privately and the country has the dubious honor of being the world’s third-biggest porn watching country. Unsurprisingly, the ban didn’t fully succeed.

Within days of the government order, Pornhub, one of the biggest adult content sites, had launched a mirror website for India with an altered web address. Other workarounds in use included VPN or proxy services such as hide.me, hidester, and whoer.net. As per a TorrentFreak report, the search for VPNs shot up in the days after the ban. Users also switched to different browsers such as Alibaba’s UC Browser or the Opera browser where the banned sites could still be accessed.

Privacy advocates say the government’s amends to internet policy, if implemented, would encourage censorship.

Most recently, an Indian court banned China’s Beijing Bytedance Technology Co.-owned music and video app TikTok which had been downloaded by nearly 300 million users in India.

The ban came on the heels of a handful of incidences—a 24-year-old man in the southern city of Chennai reportedly committed suicide on being harassed for posting videos of himself dressed as a woman. Soon after, a member of a local political party of Chennai’s home state of Tamil Nadu declared that the younger generation was hooked on TikTok and getting pushed onto the path of cultural degradation. In response, a state minister promised to seek the federal government’s help to ban the app.

A Tamil Nadu court then banned downloads of the app and forbade the media from showing videos from the app, stating: “The dangerous aspect is that inappropriate contents including language and pornography are being posted in the TikTok App. There is a possibility of children contacting strangers directly […] Without understanding the dangers involved in these kinds of Mobile Apps, it is unfortunate that our children are testing with these Apps.”

After TikTok responded that it was experiencing a daily financial loss of $500,000 and 250 jobs had been put at risk, the ban was eventually lifted, at which point the app’s downloads surged.

No reason for some blocks

However, not all website and app bans are justified, explained or commented upon by the government. In August 2018, for example, the country’s telecom minister informed parliament that since January 2016, the Department of Telecom had asked internet service providers to ban 11,045 websites, news agency Press Trust of India reported. Yet the minister didn’t offer any explanations on why these websites had been targeted.

One site that has been blocked on multiple occasions is the Internet Archive, also known as the Wayback Machine. In the past few months, other sites that have been banned include audio streaming site SoundCloud, encrypted messaging service Telegram, and graphic design website Behance, among others. According to IFF’s Gupta, the reasons for the blocks are not disclosed.

Internet service providers have become the de facto enforcers of the government’s digital concerns.

In January, IFF received several complaints from users that they couldn’t access Reddit. The IFF then invited users to fill an online form to share the list of sites and VPNs that they were unable to access. By late March it had received nearly 200 responses from across the country. Reddit frequently appeared, as did several other major platforms including Spotify, Alexa.com, SoundCloud, Telegram and several VPNs. The largest number of complaints came from those who were Reliance Jio customers, followed by Airtel.

An Airtel Spokesperson said that the company “supports an open internet and does not block any content on its network unless directed by the authorities/court in accordance with the applicable law.”

A Jio spokesperson declined to comment.

To save India’s open internet

Gupta calls these “core net neutrality violations,” as internet service providers are legally obliged to provide equal access to all internet content. This, he says, “ultimately results in a very different version of the internet from the global commons and allows the ISPs, even sometimes political interests, to become gatekeepers to access of information.”

While India has net neutrality rules in place – thanks to a massive campaign in 2015 called Save the Internet – the problem, says Gupta, is a lack of enforcement. “A policy fix is required to enforce net neutrality rules,” he says.

In March, IFF relaunched a campaign for an open internet, asking users to report net neutrality violations and sign a petition asking the Department of Telecom and the country’s telecom regulator to introduce a clear enforcement mechanism. Some of these efforts are showing signs of success already, says Gupta, as the regulator is considering issuing a consultation paper on enforcing net neutrality.

Internet service providers have become the de facto enforcers of the government’s digital concerns.

Kushal Das, an India-based member of the Tor Project and a developer at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, says telecom companies like Jio block all VPNs so they retain insights into users’ browsing preferences that can be useful for advertisers.

“If you use a VPN, Jio will not know your taste in food, et cetera,” says Das. But Tor software can bypass these blocks and the number of Tor users in India has shot up three times since October 2017 to roughly 60,000 now, says Das.

“We should be able to ask people in power why blockades are being implemented,” says Das.

Policy points to restrictions

However, the Narendra Modi-led government has been keen to bring in rules for greater control over data and the internet.

In February, the government proposed a draft national e-commerce policy that sees data as “a collective resource” or a “national asset” that the government holds in trust but which can be auctioned off, like a coal mine. The draft also cautioned that this belongs to Indians and cannot be extended to foreigners.

IFF’s Gupta says the fact that the very framework of its drafting has not been made sufficiently public is worrying. “It may all seem very dull and dry but … any platform changes, any changes to government policy in India will reflect in demand in Europe and America eventually,” he says, due the large internet user base in India.

For now, in the days after a general election, all these policy proposals are on hold and it’s not clear how soon a new government would turn its attention to internet policies.

The one thing that activists can take some relief in is the fact that the government has acknowledged at least some of the internet shutdowns in the country were implemented without sufficient cause. In December, the Department of Telecom, in response to a request for information filed by IFF, said that “frequent internet suspension orders were being issued by various State governments… even in situations where it is not warranted.” It added that it had asked all state governments to “sensitize concerned officials/agencies” against such actions.

It’s anyone’s guess how long that pause will last.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/top-10-vpn-megha-bahree-may-21-2019-in-parts-of-india-internet-shutdowns-are-a-fact-of-life