We are anonymous, we are legion

Govt blocks 32 websites, including Vimeo and Github

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T16:09:24Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Govt asks CBI to probe Cambridge Analytica in data breach case

Admin — 2018-07-29T01:47:01Z

Centre directs social media platforms to take prompt action against fake messages

The article by Komal Gupta was published in Livemint on July 27, 2018. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

The government has written to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking an enquiry into London-based political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, and asked all social media platforms to take prompt action against fake messages, including tracing their origin. Cambridge Analytica is at the centre of a Facebook data breach row, including those of around 562,000 Indian users.

“It is suspected that Cambridge Analytica may have been involved in illegally obtaining data of Indians which could be misused. The government has entrusted this issue to be investigated by the CBI for possible violation of Information Technology Act, 2000 and IPC,” said Ravi Shankar Prasad, electronics and IT minister in response to a calling attention motion in the Rajya Sabha on “Misuse of social media platforms and propagation of fake news causing unrest and violence.”

Media platforms have been directed to work with Indian officials to receive grievance in real time and also inform law enforcement agencies.

“They (social media platforms) will have to ensure that their platforms do not become vehicles of promoting hatred, terrorism money laundering, mob violence and rumour mongering,” said Prasad.

Over the last couple of months, there have been several instances of data breach and fake messages being circulated through social media platforms.

In March, after the data of Indians was allegedly compromised through Facebook by Cambridge Analytica, the government issued notices to the two companies and sought their response. According to Prasad, Facebook responded that it will streamline its internal processes on handling of personal data and Cambridge Analytica violated its platform policies. Cambridge Analytica had said that data of Indians was not breached but this was not in conformity with what was reported by Facebook.

After initial responses, Cambridge Analytica stopped responding to letters from the IT ministry after which the government ordered a CBI probe into the matter. Over the last month, a spate of mob lynchings has been reported from several states, including Assam, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tripura, Jharkhand and West Bengal, following fake messages spread through Facebook-owned messaging service WhatsApp.

According to Prasad, the government is initiating measures to increase awareness about fake news with the support of all stakeholders.

On 19 July, the government directed WhatsApp to come out with more effective solutions that can bring in accountability and facilitate enforcement of law in addition to their efforts to label forwards and identify fake news. After this, the social media giant limited forward messages to five chats at once instead of multiple chats at once.

“It now plans to the remove forward button (icon) adjacent to a video or audio message. They also plan to bring fact checking and fake news verification mechanism,” added Prasad.

Earlier this month, WhatsApp rolled out a new feature that would clearly mark forwarded messages in a move aimed at curbing the spread of rumours.

As of March, there were more than 460 million Indian users of social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and WhatsApp.

The ministry of home affairs (MHA) has issued a number of advisories on incidents of lynching by mobs fuelled by rumours of lifting/kidnapping of children and cyber crime prevention and control. It has also constituted a group of ministers and a high level committee to formulate appropriate measures to address mob violence and lynchings in the country.

“The government doesn’t seem to have understood the meaning of ‘abetment’ under the IPC, nor does it seem to understand the protections afforded to intermediaries like messaging platforms under section 79 of the Information Technology Act. Messaging platforms like WhatsApp cannot legally be held to be abettors, plain and simple,”said Pranesh Prakash, fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based think tank.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-july-27-2018-komal-gupta-govt-asks-cbi-to-probe-cambridge-analytica-in-data-breach-case

Government's stand on internet governance draws applause from civil society organisations

praskrishna — 2015-06-29T15:40:07Z

India's decision to support the multistakeholder model of internet governance has drawn mostly applause from civil society organisations and individuals who have been following the issue, even as they cautioned that implementation will determine the success of the model.

The article by Neha Alawadhi was published in Economic Times on June 24, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

A day after communications and IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said India will support the multistakeholder model, reactions poured in on Tuesday, largely hailing the move to break the longstanding status quo on the issue.

"What matters now is how the approach articulated by the minister is translated into coordinated action across various fora, including ICANN, BRICS, and perhaps most crucially the UN WSIS+10 Review Process, which culminates in the meeting of the UN General Assembly in December 2015," said Vinay Kesari, a lawyer specialising in ICT and internet governance.

Not just at international fora, India also needs to figure out tistakeholder stand within the country, said Arun Mohan Sukumar, senior fellow at the Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University. "Multistakeholderism is very attractive in principle but, as the ICANN experience shows, it is susceptible to concerns like elite capture and lack of accountability to the general public," he said.

Prasad made the announcement in a video address during the opening ceremony of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)'s 53rd public meeting in Buenos Aires on Monday. ICANN manages the Domain Name System (DNS), which helps organise the internet with the allotment of domain names such as .com, .org and .net and has often come under the scanner for not being transparent enough.

The multistakeholder model involves all stakeholders such as businesses, civil society, governments, research institutions and non-governmental organisations in the dialogue, decision-making and implementation of policymaking and governance.

The external affairs ministry, telecom department and the department of electronics and IT have long held divergent views on issues of internet governance, with no clear stand being made at international platforms. While welcoming the announcement, Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society, said the minister could have explained in greater detail, especially the ongoing transition of internet governance control from US government to a multistakeholder model.

"He also spoke about government being responsible for security and human rights over the internet, which adds to the confusion over whether India will really let the internet be a fair and free medium," he said.

Prasanth Sugathan, counsel for the Software Freedom Law Centre, said the government should seek the views of other stakeholders as well on the issue. "When you talk of multistakeholderism, it should not be only at an international level. It should also happen at a national level. The government should have other parties also contributing to issues of internet governance," he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-june-24-2015-neha-alawadhi-govts-stand-on-internet-governance-draws-applause-from-civil-society-organisations

Government washes hands of Google's new privacy policy

praskrishna — 2012-04-10T09:40:55Z

The government has more or less washed its hands of internet giant Google's new privacy policy that is being criticised in Europe and elsewhere, but wants Indian residents to watch out for themselves, writes Jayadevan in this article published in the Economic Times on April 10, 2012.

Google's new privacy policy provides information on how personal information is collected, processed and secured, as required by relevant Indian laws. "The end users, however, need to fully understand the privacy policy of Google, the consequences of sharing their personal information and their privacy rights before they start using online services," Sachin Pilot, India's minister for information technology, stated in Rajya Sabha on March 30.

Ever since Google came out with a unified privacy policy in January, it has been facing criticism from many users and privacy advocates, especially in Europe where privacy is a fundamental right. The new policy unified separate privacy polices relating to nearly 60 of Google's services.

The new policy also lets the separate Google services, such as Gmail, Google Search or Youtube, share data among each other. In Europe, Google is facing potential sanctions or even fine over its new privacy policy.

Section 43A of the India's amended Information Technology Act (2000) has established a legal framework for data privacy protection in the country. The rules notified last year explain security practices to be followed and the need for guarding sensitive personal information. The Act also requires Indian corporations to publish a privacy policy.

"Google has published a Privacy Policy on their website," said the minister. "Any change in the privacy policy is not within the purview of amended Information Technology Act 2000," Pilot added. Venkatesh Hariharan (Venky), head of public policy and government affairs at Google India, has left the company last month and did not want to comment.

According to the Pilot, while France's independent privacy watchdog, the CNIL (nationale de I'informatique et des libertes) has said that the changes to Google's privacy policy do not comply with the European law, rectification of conflict between Google, an American company and European directive on data protection is not within the purview of the Indian government.

CNIL, the data protection watchdog in France had asked Google to answer 69 questions including what it does with the data collected from users and how long it is retained to better understand the consequences of the new policy for Google users.

Experts agree Google privacy policy is in compliance with Sec 43A of IT Act but cautioned that it may not be enough. "Section 43A does not have all the privacy safeguards that exist for citizen in developed countries," said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society.

Abraham advocates the creation of a privacy commissioner. "It is important to have a independent and autonomous regulator who can respond on a proactive basis when confronted with evidence of abusive practices," he said.

Legal provisions will have to enable the creation of such a regulator, says cyber law expert Vakul Sharma. "You can not create a regulator out of thin air. You should have legislation for privacy. In India we do not have any such legislation," said Sharma.

The IT act classifies information into two - personal information and sensitive personal information. Safeguards under the section 43A and rules apply to sensitive personal information which includes biometric information, information related to health, passwords, sexual orientation and financial information among others.

"Users must be aware that Google's new policy does not have room for categorization according to Indian laws," says Sharma. "It is a plain vanilla document. The users need more," he added.

Read the original published in the Economic Times on April 10, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted in it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/govt-washes-hands-of-google-privacy-policy

Government to hold talks with stakeholders on Internet censorship

praskrishna — 2012-09-04T03:39:32Z

In an unprecedented move, the government, through the Department of Telecommunications and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, has agreed to initiate dialogue on Internet censorship with mega Internet companies, social media giants such as Google and Facebook, members of civil society, technical community, media, ISPs and legal experts.

This article by Shalini Singh was published in the Hindu on September 4, 2012. Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted.

The triggers for the discussion, which will be held on Wednesday, are the riots in Assam, Mumbai and Uttar Pradesh, as well as the mass exodus of north-east Indians from Bangalore, which resulted in bringing the government, civil society organisations and the media to a flashpoint.

Two of India’s seniormost officers in the area of Internet censorship, DoT Secretary R. Chandrashekhar and Director General, CERT-IN, Gulshan Rai will engage with a range of stakeholders in a two-hour meeting titled ‘Legitimate Restrictions on Freedom of Online Speech: The need for balance – from Deadlock to Dialogue.’

Other panellists include representatives from Google and Facebook; Pranesh Prakash from the Centre for Internet and Society (a civil society group); Prabir Purkayasta, Delhi Science Forum (technical community); Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, president, Foundation for Media Professionals; Rajesh Chharia, president, Internet Service Providers Association of India; and Apar Gupta, an advocate dealing with cyber issues.

One analysis by the CIS has shown that 309 specific items, including URLs, Twitter accounts, IMG tags, blog posts and blogs were blocked. Complaints arose when blocking a page resulted in the blocking of an entire website — which has scores or hundreds of web pages. The government maintained that this was necessary as there was a sense of crisis. Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde insisted that the government was “taking strict action only against those accounts or people which are causing damage or spreading rumours.” However, the collateral damage of the move was the Twitter accounts of several people, including journalists like Kanchan Gupta, being blocked.

“Mass censorship is like killing a fly with a sledgehammer. Rather than blocking the sites, the government should have used the same media, Facebook, Twitter and Google to counter terrorism and hate speech. I am glad that they are now open to dialogue,” says Mr. Thakurta.

“It is an extremely productive move as it will generate awareness among content providers, government and users. In the absence of any dialogue, everyone was just sticking to their own positions without listening to the other stakeholders’ point of view,” says Mr. Chharia.

The meeting is to bring several stakeholders in dialogue on a single platform.

Nearly 50 other experts from industry, mobile service providers, Internet companies, intermediaries, academia and some international organisations as well as multilaterals are expected to join the conference, which will be held at 2.30 p.m. on September 4 at FICCI.

While this is seen as a brave attempt by some, there are an equal number of sceptics who believe that the discussion may not yield the desired result given the national security objectives governing law enforcement agencies on the one hand and the desire of users, media and civil society to preserve free speech on the other. Clearly, ISPs, Internet companies and social media are in a tough spot since they face legal obligations on legitimate orders for blocking on one hand while needing to protect their user privacy and rights to unhindered access to information.

If successful, it is possible that this dialogue will ensure that legitimate restrictions do not slide into illegitimate censorship.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-com-shalini-singh-sep-4-2012-govt-to-hold-talks-with-stakeholders-on-internet-censorship

Government plans tighter rules for social media brands like Facebook, TikTok, ShareChat

Sunny Sen — 2019-08-28T15:11:38Z

The government is planning to impose higher levels of accountability on social media platforms as it grapples with the problem of bringing about order in a fast-growing industry where regulations are still nebulous.

The blog post by Sunny Sen was published by CNBC TV 18 on August 28, 2019. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

One important measure it is considering is to tell social media brands such as TikTok, Facebook and ShareChat that they will be legally liable for content that they have had a hand in either creating or curating.

Which means that even if there is the slightest fingerprint of a social media company on a piece of content, platforms cannot claim to be mere intermediaries and disclaim responsibility for consequences.

“Social media companies can’t bring out original content or they should take responsibility for them,” said a senior government source, explaining the centre’s thinking on the issue.

The explosion increase in user-generated content, especially short videos, has become a regulation headache for the authorities. When user-generated social media content crosses the bounds of decency, spreads hate or propagates fake news, intermediary status also confers legal immunity because the platforms can claim they do not know what the user is putting up unless an individual or software raises a red flag.

While in the case of traditional media such as newspapers and television there is editorial control over what is printed or goes on air, social media is still a free-for-all world. Social media companies have so far argued that they are only intermediaries, and users generate content over which they have no control. But in practice, it is not all that clear-cut.

“Safe harbour is for non-curated content,” said Subho Ray, President of Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI). “Safe harbour is not applicable to platform, but to the piece of content. If the content is curated by a company they can’t claim safe harbour because if you are curating it or have exclusive rights over it, you have seen it.”

The government is also considering to stop intermediaries from having exclusive user-generated content on the platform.

“Discussions are on, but there is no decision on that yet,” said another source.

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of Bangalore-based research organisation, Centre for Internet and Society, said, “An intermediary is providing a two-sided market. If they participate in that market there could be competition harms.”

For context, TikTok owned by Chinese internet conglomerate ByteDance sent a notice to ShareChat to take down content for which the former had signed exclusive rights. ShareChat took it off, but also sent a letter to Ajay Sawhney, Secretary of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity), on August 23, copy of which is with Moneycontrol, asking for clarity on laws governing intermediaries.

“Instead of acting as intermediaries (that are protected by safe harbour liability exemptions), such exclusivity deals result in these platforms being considered broadcasters or streaming services (and therefore directly liable for the nature of the content distributed by them),” Berges Y. Malu, Head of Public Policy and Policy Communications at Mohalla Technology Pvt. Ltd. (owners of ShareChat) wrote in the letter.

TikTok engages with users who can promote the platform and teach other users on how use it. It also encourages and incentivises content creation by some of these users, but does not exercise any editorial control over content creation. “TikTok may enter into a mutual contractual agreement with some creators, where TikTok may enjoy certain exclusivity rights over the content of these creators,” said a TikTok spokesperson commenting of ShareChat sending a letter to the government. “In this regard, TikTok has undertaken legal action as part of its commitment to protect its users from copyright infringement.”

But, there is a catch there. “They can claim all rights. Because the user had granted such a liberal license. But the user as the copyright holder can license it again and again to multiple parties because these licenses are non-exclusive,” said Abraham.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cnbc-tv-18-august-28-2019-government-plans-tighter-rules-for-social-media-brands-like-facebook-tiktok-sharechat

Government may tieup with global police, Interpol to fight child pornography

praskrishna — 2015-09-27T10:25:44Z

International partnerships, including with the global police network Interpol, could be the basis for India's strategy to counter child pornography after the government's move to ban websites peddling smut backfired last month.

The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in the Economic Times on September 3, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

The new approach by the ministry of communications and information technology mirrors the system adopted by developed countries, government officials said, representing a targetted attack on child pornography instead of the recent fiasco when the authorities backtracked in the face of protests after banning 857 websites.

Once it comes on board as a partner, the International Criminal Police Organization will alert India about production, distribution or broadcast of child pornographic content regularly. India will also have access to an Interpol database known as the 'worst of ' list of domains with content containing child sexual abuse.

"The country is not divided on the issue of child pornography and the government has made a policy statement that it will deal with the problem firmly. So that will be guiding the entire action," a senior government official said. The person said that the government is still studying the model and a call will be taken soon.

A partnership with the UK-based Internet Watch Foundation, which maintains a database on child pornography and collaborates with the British government, is also being considered.

Interpol manages a database which uses sophisticated image comparison software to make connections between victims and places. The foundation also maintains a similar database which is constantly updated. It sends alerts to members twice each day.

"That's the global best practice," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore based advocacy group Centre for Internet and Society. "There is no reason for us to reinvent anything; we should just adopt the best practice with some improvements." For a long time, the government and Internet service providers have been passing the buck to each other on this issue, arguing that they don't have the wherewithal to create a database on such content and block it. "This is because as per the Indian laws, anyone who looks at such content even with the motive of blocking it is committing a punishable offense," said Abraham. In August the government said it was banning 857 pornographic websites, only to backtrack amidst widespread criticism and a rap from the Supreme Court. Almost all the websites have been unblocked now with the exception of a few which allegedly contain child pornographic content.

During the hearing in the Supreme Court, the Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) said that it is impossible for an ISP to block pornographic sites without orders from the court or department of telecom and that the task of identifying such websites should not be the domain of internet service providers. A decision on the issue will work in the government's favour since the next hearing in the matter is slated for October. "Once the country has access to some list which is authentic and verified, regular action can be taken," a government official said.

As per initial discussions, the dominant point of view is for ISPAI to be the point of contact between the government and international organisations. It will be tasked with vetting the list and receiving blocking orders from the telecom department so that further action can be taken.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-september-3-2015-surabhi-agarwal-govt-tie-up-with-global-police-interpol-to-fight-child-pornography

Government keeps experts out of cyber security discussions

praskrishna — 2016-04-24T05:03:34Z

The article by Amrita Madhukalya was published in DNA on April 23, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

During India's closed-door discussions on cyber security and Internet policies at the recently-concluded Russia-India-China (RIC) convention, Internet experts fear that the government may be trying to leave out discussions with social stakeholders like social activists, businessmen or the academia. It must be borne in mind that telecom minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in an ICAN meet last year stressed on the role of the government in cyber-security policy measures, despite the need to have an Internet largely unregulated by the government.

Anja Kovacs of the Internet Democracy project feels that India has given away too much, and that India's multi-stakeholder approach in the context of the role of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is not too clear. "Russia and China have traditionally, since the 90s, wanted a bigger role for the ITU, despite a pushback from the West. The ITU has had a positive role in the recent past. Yet, when they mention multilateralism, the scope for developing nations is not too wide. The US may have the scope to include several stakeholders from the business community, civil society and academia, but how much scope does a developing country have," says Anja, adding that the mention of internationalising, too, is problematic.

The grouping of the three countries could also be to signal an alliance to counter the US's efforts to ensure the exemption of the UK from the mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) system which is headquartered in the United States, says Chinmayi Arun, policy director at the Centre for Communication Governance at NLU Delhi. Under the MLAT process, any request about data that originates in case of a criminal breach from a country is usually routed via US's department of justice, which takes time while following due processes.

"The concerns expressed, understandably, on the growing concerns of cyber terrorism and the efforts to deal with it are needed, but there is no need to exclude other stakeholders in the process," said Chinmayi. "Russia and China have also been pushing for a growing role of the state in policing the government, and are keen to use the UN to facilitate that."

Nikhil Pahwa of Medianama, who steer-headed the net neutrality movement by engaging several stakeholders, says that the government's stance is unclear, as it speaks of both multilateralism and multiple stakeholders, as both are contradictory.

Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society says that he is sceptical of the sentiments expressed on internationalisation of internet governance.

"For instance, there's been a two-year process via which the US's oversight over ICANN and the IANA functions are nominally being removed. But Russia, India, and China have not really pushed for internationalisation, and ICANN and the Internet's root zone system is going to remain subject to US jurisdiction, including US sanctions. If the ministers truly meant what they say, they should intervene in that process and say that we need to internationalise ICANN in practice and spirit, not just in name," he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/dna-amrita-madhukalya-april-23-2016-government-keeps-experts-out-of-cyber-security-discussions

Government Gives Nod To Bill For Building DNA Databases In India, For 'Criminal Investigation And Justice Delivery'

Admin — 2018-07-13T15:25:13Z

The bill will be introduced in Parliament in the Monsoon session.

The article was published in the Huffington Post on July 5, 2018. Elonnai Hickok was quoted.

The government has set the path for creating a DNA bank storing citizen's profiles, as the Union Cabinet cleared a bill for the regulation and use of DNA for policing. The bill is meant to regulate the use of DNA for criminal investigation and justice delivery, and has provisions for the storage of genetic information. The DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill 2018 was passed in a cabinet meeting, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and seeks to expand the use of DNA to help solve crimes, identify missing persons, and determine biological relationships between people. It will be introduced in Parliament during the Monsoon Session beginning July 18.

Although the bill includes safeguards on how this data is meant to be used, it's worth pointing out that India still does not have any laws regarding data protection and privacy. The Justice BN Srikrishna Committee on data protection, which was formed in August 2017, was expected to present its report months ago, and there were strong leaks that it would come out in June. However, the report remains under wraps, and there there is no clarity about its recommendations. That's also only the first step, as it has to then be taken up by the government and made into a law.

Scientists who had helped draft the DNA Technology bill told The Telegraph that expanding the use of DNA in criminal investigations could lead to higher conviction rates, especially in cases of murder, rape or human trafficking, among other crimes involving the human body.

"We rely on DNA for two things - it helps establish beyond doubt the biological identity of an individual and it helps beyond doubt to determine whether there is any biological relationship between two persons," said Jayaraman Gowrishankar, former director and now an Indian National Science Academy senior scientist at the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics in Hyderabad.

According to NDTV, there is also a provision for a jail term of up to three years for anyone who leaks information from one of the DNA databases being created, along with a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh. People seeking this information through illegal means face the same punishment.

In other countries, DNA profiles are also used for a number of businesses such as health care, ancestry information, and even DNA-based custom diet plans. However, the draft DNA bill states that the data collected can only be used for the identification of a person, and not other uses.

However, the accuracy of DNA testing in crime scenes has also been called into question over time. The possibility of cross contamination is incredibly high, and has led to innocent people going to prison.

Writing on the subject for The Hindustan Times, Elonnai Hickok, Director, Internet Governance at the Centre for Internet and Society added: "Policy needs to evolve past protections that are limited to process oriented legal privacy provisions, but instead to protections that are comprehensive — accounting for process and enabling the individual to control and know how her/ his data is being used and by whom. Other countries have recognised this and are taking important steps to empower the individual. India needs to do the same for its citizens."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-july-5-2018-government-gives-nod-to-bill-for-building-dna-databases-in-india-for-criminal-investigation-and-justice-delivery

Government gives free publicity worth 40k to Twitter and Facebook

Akriti Bopanna — 2018-04-27T09:52:26Z

We conducted a 2 week survey of newspapers for links between government advertisement to social media giants. As citizens, we should be worried about the close nexus between the Indian government and digital behemoths such as Facebook, Google and Twitter. It has become apparent to us after a 2 week print media analysis that our Government has been providing free publicity worth Rs 40,000 to these entities. There are multiple issues with this as this article attempts at pointing out.

We analyzed 5 English language newspapers daily for 2 weeks from March 12^th to 26^th, one week of the newspapers in Lucknow and the second week in Bangalore. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Alphabet backed services such as Youtube and Google Plus were part of our survey. Of a total of 33 advertisements (14 in Lucknow+19 in Bangalore), Twitter stands out as the most prominent advertising platform used by government agencies with 30 ads but Facebook at 29 was more expensive. In order to ascertain the rates of publicity, current advertisement rates for Times of India as our purpose was to solely give a rough estimation of how much the government is spending.

Advertising of this nature is not merely an inherent problem of favoring some social media companies over others but also symptomatic of a bigger problem, the lack of our native e-governance mechanisms which cause the Government to rely and promote others. Where we do have guidelines they are not being followed. By outsourcing their e-governance platforms to Twitter such as TwitterSeva, a feature created by the Twitter India team to help citizens connect better with government services, there is less of an impetus to construct better websites of their own.

If this is so because we currently do not have the capacity to build them ourselves then it is imperative that this changes. We should either be executing government functions on digital infrastructure owned by them or on open and interoperable systems. If anything, the surveyed social media platforms can be used to enhance pre-existing facilities. However, currently the converse is true with these platforms overshadowing the presence of e-governance websites. Officials have started responding to complaints on Twitter, diluting the significance of such complaint mechanisms on their respective department’s portal. Often enough such features are not available on the relevant government website. This sets a dangerous precedent for a citizen management system as the records of such interactions are then in the hands of these companies who may not exist in the future. As a result, they can control the access to such records or worse tamper with them. Posterity and reliability of such data can be ensured only if they are stored within the Government’s reach or if they are open and public with a first copy stored on Government records which ensures transparency as well. Data portability is an important facet to this issue as well as being a right consumers should possess. It provides for support of many devices, transition to alternative technologies and lastly, makes sure that all the data like other public records will be available upon request through the Right to Information procedure. The last is vital to uphold the spirit of transparency envisioned through the RTI process since interactions of government with citizens are then under its ambit and available for disclosure for whomsoever concerned.

Secondly, such practices by the Government are enhancing the monopoly of the companies in the market effectively discouraging competition and eventually, innovation. While a certain elite strata of the population might opt for Twitter or Facebook as their mode of conveying grievance, this may not hold true for the rest of the online India population.

Picking players in a free market is in violation of technology and vendor neutrality, a practice essential in e-governance to provide a level playing field for all and competing technologies. Projecting only a few platforms as de facto mediums of communication with the government inhibits the freedom of choice of citizens to air their grievances through a vendor or technology they are comfortable with. At the same time it makes the Government a mouthpiece for such companies who are gaining free publicity and consolidating their popularity. Government apps such as the SwachBharat one which is an e-governance platform do not offer much more in terms of functionality but either reflect the website or are a less mature version of the same. This leads to the problem of fracturing with many avenues of complaining such as the website, app, Twitter etc. Consequently, the priority of the people dealing with the complaints in terms of platform of response is unsure. Will I be responded to sooner if I tweet a complaint as opposed to putting it up on the app? Having an interoperable system can solve this where the Government can have a dashboard of their various complaints and responses are then made out evenly. Twitter itself could implement this by having complaints from Facebook for example and then the Twitter Seva would be an equal platform as opposed to the current issue where only they are favored.

Recent events have illustrated how detrimental the storage of data by these giants can be in terms of privacy. Data security concerns are also a consequence of such leaks. Not only is this a long overdue call for a better data protection law but at the same time also for the Government to realize that these platforms cannot be trusted. The hiring of Cambridge Analytica to influence voters in the US elections, based on their Facebook profiles and ancillary data, effectively put the governance of the country on sale by exploiting these privacy and security issues. By basing e-governance on their backbone, India is not far from inviting trouble as well. It is unnecessary and dangerous to have a go-between for matters that pertain between an individual and state.

As this article was being written, it was confirmed by the Election Commission that they are partnering with Facebook for the Karnataka Assemby Elections to promote activities such as encourage enrollment of Voter ID and voter participation. Initiatives like these tying the government even closer to these companies are of concern and cementing the latter’s stronghold.

Note: Our survey data and results are attached to this post. All research was collected by Shradha Nigam, a Vth year student at NLSIU, Bangalore.

Survey Data and Results

This report is based on a survey of government advertisements in English language newspapers in relation to their use of social media platforms and dedicated websites (“Survey”). For the purpose of this report, the ambit of the social media platforms has been limited to the use of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google Plus and Instagram. The report was prepared by Shradha Nigam, a student from National Law School of India University, Bangalore. Read the full report here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/government-giving-free-publicity-worth-40-k-to-twitter-and-facebook

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

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T14:22:58Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government blocks 32 websites to check ISIS propaganda

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T13:37:39Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government asks Twitter to block fake 'PMO India' accounts; site fails to respond

praskrishna — 2012-09-04T12:24:52Z

A standoff between the government and microblogging service Twitter, that has got India's online community up in arms, continues, as Twitter is still to act on India's requests to block some of the fake 'PMO India' accounts.

This article was published in the Economic Times on August 23, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

India's Minister for Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal said, "Twitter has not responded to our requests in a satisfactory manner. The fake accounts are still there. The government of India is contemplating what action should be taken against Twitter and this will be announced as soon as we have finalised our response," he said.

Sibal further added that the government received a response from the US Department of Justice, which also agreed that the content on the sites India sought to ban was inappropriate.

Twitter's operating code allows for parody accounts to be allowed as long as such accounts clearly identify as parody. The accounts in question - including @Indian_pm, @PMOIndiaa, @dryumyumsingh, @PM0India- do so.

Unlike other popular parody accounts of world leaders, though, some of these accounts make no attempt to 'spoof' tweets from the Prime Minister. The user of the @PM0India handle, with over 11 thousand followers, has changed their handle to @thehinduexpress, and tweeted "When I've to parody PM, I'll use the other a/c and RT that. For countering media and Congress, this ID will be used. To hell with censorship."

An email by ET to Twitter Inc, received no response at the time of going to press. However, news agency PTI quoted sources saying that Twitter has communicated to the PMO that it would be locating the "unlawful content". "India is important to us and we would like to have clearer communication in these matters in future," PTI quoted Twitter as saying. Official spokesperson for Indian Prime Minister's Office Pankaj Pachauri confirmed that Twitter is looking into the matter.

Over the past few days, the government has blocked around 300 websites which it blames for spreading rumours that triggered the exodus of people from the North East from several cities. Google and Facebook on Tuesday told ET they were working with India in removing content which can incite violence.

"There is clear evidence that these social networks have caused harm and disruption. However, they need to be clearer about the way they go about blocking sites and other links. The block order contained around 20 accounts and over 80 Youtube videos.

It also had several mainstream media reports and a few Pakistani sites," Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society said. Analysts do not rule out the possibility that Twitter itself will be blocked in India if it does not act.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/articles-economictimes-indiatimes-com-govt-asks-twitter-to-block-fake-pmo-india-accounts-site-fails-to-respond

Governing Identity on the Internet

praskrishna — 2012-10-04T09:06:59Z

Security, openness and privacy will be discussed at this workshop to be held at the IGF 2012 on November 8, 2012 from 11.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. Malavika Jayaram, a fellow at CIS is one of the panelists confirmed for participation.

Concise Description of Workshop:
From single-sign-on identifiers for federated websites to Whois data associated with Internet resources, countless individuals, business and government organizations have a stake in Internet identity information and its governance. While territorially-based governments have historically played a central role in their citizens' identity, it is private service providers and individual users that might be considered the de facto managers of Internet identity information. Private, rule-based arrangements (e.g., “trust frameworks”) have emerged in many industry sectors to help manage Internet identity transactions. Nonetheless, many states are actively pursuing digital identity efforts (OECD 2011), including the United States government's National Strategy for Trusted Identity in Cyberspace (NSTIC) which is standing up a governance body and the European Commission's proposed regulation on electronic identification and trusted services for electronic transactions. These efforts seek to promote greater adoption and interoperability of Internet identity solutions.

What are the appropriate roles of governments, the private sector and individuals in Internet identity? Are there benefits or risks of various Internet identity governance solutions being proposed? How compatible are they with the transnational nature of the Internet? Which stakeholders will determine the standards and policies for how Internet identity information is created, transmitted, utilized, or protected? This workshop, drawing on expertise from business, technical community, civil society and government actors, explores this active yet under examined area of Internet governance. The format of the workshop will include short position statements from the panelists followed by a question and answer session facilitated by a moderator involving the audience.

Organiser(s) Name:

Brenden Kuerbis, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto and Internet Governance Project, Syracuse University
Christine Runnegar, Internet Society

Previous Workshop(s):
http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=9 http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=23 http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=10 http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chrono... http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...

Submitted Workshop Panelists:
The following panelists have been confirmed for participation:

Naomi Lefkovitz, Senior Privacy Advisor, National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace National Program Office, NIST, United States Dept of Commerce (government) (bio [1])
Andrea Servida, Head of Task Force "Legislation Team (eIDAS)", European Commission (government) (bio [2])
Robin Wilton, Technical Outreach for Identity and Privacy, Internet Society (technical) (bio [3])
Malavika Jayaram, Fellow, Centre for Internet & Society
Mawaki Chango, Africa Internet Policy Coordinator, Association for Progressive Communications (academic/civil society) (bio [4])
Marc Crandall, Google (business)
Bill Smith, Technology Evangelist, Paypal (business) (bio [5])
Brenden Kuerbis, Postdoctoral Fellow, Citizen Lab, University of Toronto and Internet Governance Project (academic/civil society) (bio [6])

[1] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/naomi-lefkovitz/47/788/a88 [2] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrea-servida/0/47a/a70 [3] http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/staff/mr-robin-wilton [4] http://www.linkedin.com/in/touchwithmawaki [5] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-smith/1/a0b/3a6 [6] http://www.linkedin.com/in/brendenkuerbis

Name of Remote Moderator(s):

Frédéric Donck, European Regional Bureau Director, Internet Society

Assigned Panellists:
Smith - Bill
Servida - Andrea
Jayaram - Malavika
Lefkovitz - Naomi
Wilton - Robin
Kuerbis - Brenden
Chango - Mawaki
Crandall - Marc

Read the original published on the IGF website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals-governing-identity-on-the-internet

Governing ID: Use of Digital ID in the Healthcare Sector

Shruti Trikanad — 2020-03-02T13:21:22Z

In our third case-study, we use our Evaluation Framework for Digital ID to examine the use of Digital ID in the healthcare sector.

Read the case-study or download as PDF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/governing-id-use-of-digital-id-in-the-healthcare-sector