We are anonymous, we are legion

Google survey: 37% of urban Indian voters are online

praskrishna — 2013-11-07T10:41:46Z

Almost four out of every 10 urban voters (or 37%) in India are online, just a little less than the number (42%) that are undecided about whom they will vote for in the 2014 general elections, according to a survey by Google India and research agency TNS released on Tuesday.

This article by Anuja and Moulishree Srivastava was published in Livemint on October 8, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

To be sure, the two sets needn’t necessarily be mutually exclusive.

The Google-TNS survey said the biggest consideration for online urban voters is the political party (36%), followed by candidates (35%) with party leadership coming in a distant third at 17%. Only 11% of those surveyed said they would vote for a party based on its prime ministerial candidate.

The Election Commission estimates the total number of voters to be 725 million. According to provisional census data, out of India’s 1.21 billion population, 833 million live in rural India and 377 million in urban areas, Mint reported on 7 September.

Using the same proportions, the number of urban voters is around 225 million. And the number of those online, around 83 million.

However, there is no certainty that all these voters can be reached through digital media and be influenced to cast their votes for a party or a candidate. First-time voters, estimated from census data and adjusting for the fact that the survey was conducted in 2011, account for 149.36 million of the electorate.

The main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has already declared Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi as its prime ministerial candidate.

While 45% of those surveyed said they would want to see more information on the Internet to help them make up their minds, 65% said they do not share their political views online.

According to Rajan Anandan, vice-president and managing director of Google India, while in the beginning of this year there were 150 million Internet users in the country, it is set to reach 200 million mark by year end.

The main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has already declared Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi as its prime ministerial candidate.

While 45% of those surveyed said they would want to see more information on the Internet to help them make up their minds, 65% said they do not share their political views online.

	The main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has already declared Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi as its prime ministerial candidate. While 45% of those surveyed said they would want to see more information on the Internet to help them make up their minds, 65% said they do not share their political views online. According to Rajan Anandan, vice-president and managing director of Google India, while in the beginning of this year there were 150 million Internet users in the country, it is set to reach 200 million mark by year end.

The main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has already declared Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi as its prime ministerial candidate.

While 45% of those surveyed said they would want to see more information on the Internet to help them make up their minds, 65% said they do not share their political views online.

According to Rajan Anandan, vice-president and managing director of Google India, while in the beginning of this year there were 150 million Internet users in the country, it is set to reach 200 million mark by year end.

Modi remains the most Google-searched politician in India, and Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi is second on the list. The BJP is the most searched political party, followed by the Congress.

The survey was carried out between March and September this year, covering 65 constituencies, 59 cities and 7,042 respondents—all registered voters who use the Internet.

Also on Tuesday, the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) released a report showing that increasing spending on social media campaigns can swing 3%–4% of votes in 24 states where Internet usage is sizeable. Social media marketing can play a decisive role as a swing over 1% can change the outcome of elections, it claimed.

The number of social media users in urban India is set to reach 86 million in October this year, and 91 million by the end of this year, according to IAMAI. Political experts are, however, sceptical about the impact of the Internet and social media on the general elections next year. “There would be a little impact but to say that there would be a major effect of it would be a little difficult,” Abhay Kumar Dubey, a political analyst and fellow at the Centre for Study of Developing Societies, a Delhi-based think tank, said.

“We have seen social media’s impact as a mobilizing instrument for agitational purposes but it cannot be said whether it can play a role in voting preference.” Sunil Abraham, executive director of Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), too was sceptical about the impact of Internet usage on elections.

“Urban voters who are online make a small percentage of the voter base. It is not clear whether the sample size of the study was big enough to draw any significant conclusions. So far we have been told that the young urban voter does not always vote and he or she prioritizes a weekend getaway over participating in the general elections,” he said.

Abraham also said that the younger voting population does not vote according to any one trend. “Young people online are a representative subset of the general population divided across political preferences and ideologies. There is no evidence that they will vote as a block and will be extremely susceptible to social media based propaganda,” he added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-october-8-2013-anuja-moulishree-srivastava-google-survey-indian-voters-online

Google Policy Fellowship Programme: Call for Applications

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T15:38:28Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) is inviting applications for the Google Policy Fellowship programme. Google is providing a USD 7,500 stipend to the India Fellow, who will be selected by August 15, 2012.

The Google Policy Fellowship offers successful candidates an opportunity to develop research and debate on the fellowship focus areas, which include Access to Knowledge, Openness in India, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, and Telecom, for a period of about ten weeks starting from August 2012 upto October 2012. CIS will select the India Fellow. Send in your applications for the position by June 27, 2012.

To apply, please send to google.fellowship@cis-india.org the following materials:

Statement of Purpose: A brief write-up outlining about your interest and qualifications for the programme including the relevant academic, professional and extracurricular experiences. As part of the write-up, also explain on what you hope to gain from participation in the programme and what research work concerning free expression online you would like to further through this programme. (About 1200 words max).
Resume
Three references

Fellowship Focus Areas

Access to Knowledge: Studies looking at access to knowledge issues in India in light of copyright law, consumers law, parallel imports and the interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property rights, targeted at policymakers, Members of Parliament, publishers, photographers, filmmakers, etc.
Openness in India: Studies with policy recommendations on open access to scholarly literature, free access to law, open content, open standards, free and open source software, aimed at policymakers, policy researchers, academics and the general public.
Freedom of Expression: Studies on policy, regulatory and legislative issues concerning censorship and freedom of speech and expression online, aimed at bloggers, journalists, authors and the general public.
Privacy: Studies on privacy issues like data protection and the right to information, limits to privacy in light of the provisions of the constitution, media norms and privacy, banking and financial privacy, workplace privacy, privacy and wire-tapping, e-governance and privacy, medical privacy, consumer privacy, etc., aimed at policymakers and the public.
Telecom: Building awareness and capacity on telecommunication policy in India for researchers and academicians, policymakers and regulators, consumer and civil society organisations, education and library institutions and lay persons through the creation of a dedicated web based resource focusing on knowledge dissemination.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Google Policy Fellowship program?
The Google Policy Fellowship program offers students interested in Internet and technology related policy issues with an opportunity to spend their summer working on these issues at the Centre for Internet and Society at Bangalore. Students will work for a period of ten weeks starting from July 2012. The research agenda for the program is based on legal and policy frameworks in the region connected to the ground-level perceptions of the fellowship focus areas mentioned above.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program? Are there any age restrictions on participating?
Yes. You must be 18 years of age or older by January 1, 2012 to be eligible to participate in Google Policy Fellowship program in 2012.

Are there citizenship requirements for the Fellowship?
For the time being, we are only accepting students eligible to work in India (e.g. Indian citizens, permanent residents of India, and individuals presently holding an Indian student visa. Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet the criteria.

Who is eligible to participate as a student in Google Policy Fellowship program?
In order to participate in the program, you must be a student. Google defines a student as an individual enrolled in or accepted into an accredited institution including (but not necessarily limited to) colleges, universities, masters programs, PhD programs and undergraduate programs. Eligibility is based on enrollment in an accredited university by January 1, 2012.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program?
In order to participate in the program, you must be a student (see Google's definition of a student above). You must also be eligible to work in India (see section on citizen requirements for fellowship above). Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet this criterion.
I have been accepted into an accredited post-secondary school program, but have not yet begun attending. Can I still take part in the program?
As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.
I graduate in the middle of the program. Can I still participate?
As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.

Payments, Forms, and Other Administrative Stuff

How do payments work?*

Google will provide a stipend of USD 7,500 equivalent to each Fellow for the summer.

Accepted students in good standing with their host organization will receive a USD 2,500 stipend payable shortly after they begin the Fellowship in August 2012.
Students who receive passing mid-term evaluations by their host organization will receive a USD 1,500 stipend shortly after the mid-term evaluation in September 2012.
Students who receive passing final evaluations by their host organization and who have submitted their final program evaluations will receive a USD 3,500 stipend shortly after final evaluations in October 2012.

Please note: Payments will be made by electronic bank transfer, and are contingent upon satisfactory evaluations by the host organization, completion of all required enrollment and other forms. Fellows are responsible for payment of any taxes associated with their receipt of the Fellowship stipend.

*While the three step payment structure given here corresponds to the one in the United States, disbursement of the amount may be altered as felt necessary.

What documentation is required from students?

Students should be prepared, upon request, to provide Google or the host organization with transcripts from their accredited institution as proof of enrollment or admission status. Transcripts do not need to be official (photo copy of original will be sufficient).

I would like to use the work I did for my Google Policy Fellowship to obtain course credit from my university. Is this acceptable?

Yes. If you need documentation from Google to provide to your school for course credit, you can contact Google. We will not provide documentation until we have received a final evaluation from your mentoring organization.

Host Organizations

What is Google's relationship with the Centre for Internet and Society?

Google provides the funding and administrative support for individual fellows directly. Google and the Centre for Internet and Society are not partners or affiliates. The Centre for Internet and Society does not represent the views or opinions of Google and cannot bind Google legally.

Important Dates

What is the program timeline?

June 27, 2012	Student Application Deadline. Applications must be received by midnight.
July 18, 2012	Student applicants are notified of the status of their applications.
August 2012	Students begin their fellowship with the host organization (start date to be determined by students and the host organization); Google issues initial student stipends.
September 2012	Mid-term evaluations; Google issues mid-term stipends.
October 2012	Final evaluations; Google issues final stipends.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/google-policy-fellowship

Google Policy Fellowship Programme: Call for Applications

praskrishna — 2013-05-17T01:01:47Z

The Google Policy Fellowship offers successful candidates an opportunity to develop research and debate on the fellowship focus areas, which include Access to Knowledge, Openness in India, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, and Telecom, for a period of about ten weeks starting from July 7, 2013 upto October 1, 2013. CIS will select the India Fellow. Send in your applications for the position by June 15, 2013.

To apply, please send to google.fellowship@cis-india.org the following materials:

Statement of Purpose: A brief write-up outlining about your interest and qualifications for the programme including the relevant academic, professional and extracurricular experiences. As part of the write-up, also explain on what you hope to gain from participation in the programme and what research work concerning free expression online you would like to further through this programme. (About 1200 words max).
Resume
Three references

Fellowship Focus Areas

Access to Knowledge: Studies looking at access to knowledge issues in India in light of copyright law, consumers law, parallel imports and the interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property rights, targeted at policymakers, Members of Parliament, publishers, photographers, filmmakers, etc.

Openness in India: Studies with policy recommendations on open access to scholarly literature, free access to law, open content, open standards, free and open source software, aimed at policymakers, policy researchers, academics and the general public.

Freedom of Expression: Studies on policy, regulatory and legislative issues concerning censorship and freedom of speech and expression online, aimed at bloggers, journalists, authors and the general public.

Privacy: Studies on privacy issues like data protection and the right to information, limits to privacy in light of the provisions of the constitution, media norms and privacy, banking and financial privacy, workplace privacy, privacy and wire-tapping, e-governance and privacy, medical privacy, consumer privacy, etc., aimed at policymakers and the public.

Telecom: Building awareness and capacity on telecommunication policy in India for researchers and academicians, policymakers and regulators, consumer and civil society organisations, education and library institutions and lay persons through the creation of a dedicated web based resource focusing on knowledge dissemination.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Google Policy Fellowship program?

The Google Policy Fellowship program offers students interested in Internet and technology related policy issues with an opportunity to spend their summer working on these issues at the Centre for Internet and Society at Bangalore. Students will work for a period of ten weeks starting from June 1, 2013. The research agenda for the program is based on legal and policy frameworks in the region connected to the ground-level perceptions of the fellowship focus areas mentioned above.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program? Are there any age restrictions on participating?

Yes. You must be 18 years of age or older by January 1, 2013 to be eligible to participate in Google Policy Fellowship program in 2013.

Are there citizenship requirements for the Fellowship?

For the time being, we are only accepting students eligible to work in India (e.g. Indian citizens, permanent residents of India, and individuals presently holding an Indian student visa. Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet the criteria.

Who is eligible to participate as a student in Google Policy Fellowship program?

In order to participate in the program, you must be a student. Google defines a student as an individual enrolled in or accepted into an accredited institution including (but not necessarily limited to) colleges, universities, masters programs, PhD programs and undergraduate programs. Eligibility is based on enrollment in an accredited university by January 1, 2013.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program?

In order to participate in the program, you must be a student (see Google's definition of a student above). You must also be eligible to work in India (see section on citizen requirements for fellowship above). Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet this criterion.
I have been accepted into an accredited post-secondary school program, but have not yet begun attending. Can I still take part in the program?

As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2013, you are eligible to participate in the program.
I graduate in the middle of the program. Can I still participate?

As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2013, you are eligible to participate in the program.

Payments, Forms, and Other Administrative Stuff

How do payments work?

Google will provide a stipend of USD 7,500 equivalent to each Fellow for the summer.

Accepted students in good standing with their host organization will receive a USD 2,500 stipend payable shortly after they begin the Fellowship in June 2013.
Students who receive passing mid-term evaluations by their host organization will receive a USD 1,500 stipend shortly after the mid-term evaluation in July 2013.
Students who receive passing final evaluations by their host organization and who have submitted their final program evaluations will receive a USD 3,500 stipend shortly after final evaluations in August 2013.

*While the three step payment structure given here corresponds to the one in the United States, disbursement of the amount may be altered as felt necessary.

What documentation is required from students?

I would like to use the work I did for my Google Policy Fellowship to obtain course credit from my university. Is this acceptable?

Host Organizations

What is Google's relationship with the Centre for Internet and Society?

Important Dates

What is the program timeline?

June 15, 2013	Student Application Deadline. Applications must be received by midnight.
July 1, 2013	Student applicants are notified of the status of their applications.
July 2013	Students begin their fellowship with the host organization (start date to be determined by students and the host organization); Google issues initial student stipends.
August 2013	Mid-term evaluations; Google issues mid-term stipends.
October 2013	Final evaluations; Google issues final stipends.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/google-policy-fellowship-call-for-applications-2013

Google Policy Fellowship Program: Asia Chapter

praskrishna — 2011-08-02T07:34:24Z

For the ardent followers of free and open Internet and for those who love to debate on technology, media law and Internet-related policy issues, there is some good news. The Centre for Internet and Society, India is conducting a Google Policy Fellowship program this summer!

Offered for the first time in Asia Pacific, the Google Policy Fellowship offers successful applicants the opportunity to develop research and debate on issues relating to freedom of expression for a minimum of ten weeks from June to August 2011. The applicants will be selected in Australia, India and Hong Kong respectively.

The Centre for Internet and Society will select the India Fellow, and is accepting applications for the position before March 27, 2011. Google is providing a USD 7,500 stipend to the India Fellow, who will be selected by April 18, 2011.

To apply, please send to google.fellowship@cis-india.org the following materials:

Statement of Purpose: A brief write-up outlining about your interest and qualifications for the programme including the relevant academic, professional and extracurricular experiences. As part of the write-up, also explain on what you hope to gain from participation in the programme and what research work concerning free expression online you would like to further through this programme. (About 1200 words max).
Resume
Three references

More information about the focus of the work that the Google Policy Fellow will take on is described below1. More information about the Google Policy Fellowship program is available in the FAQ2.

Research Agenda Outline

The research proposals, and the fellowship itself, are to be anchored in the reality of the growing threat to civil liberties in cyberspace, with the consequent curbs on free expression that arise. The aim of the research is to chart out a comprehensive map of the legal and policy frameworks relating to free expression within the Asia-Pacific region and also examine people’s attitudes and ground-level movements relating to the same. This second component will necessarily involve some amount of empirical research: the fellows across different regions (for 2011, there will be fellows from India, Australia and Hong Kong) will be expected to use a survey on similar lines, so that the results could be adequately contrasted.

The research would involve but not necessarily be limited to the following areas:

Understanding Dissent

This component would involve looking at how dissent is negotiated in the region by the legal system and the ways in which governments seek to stifle and control online dissent. Specific points of interrogation would include:

The extent to which the constitution and other laws in the region protect freedom of expression and the extent to which they are enforced.
Judicial decisions relating to free expression, censorship and dissent. Have they examined how speech and other activities on the Internet should be afforded free speech protection?
The kind of material deemed objectionable and subject to censorship and/or penalization.
The kind of penalties placed on writers, commentators and bloggers for posting objectionable materials on the Internet.
Understanding the economic environment in which free expression operates: chains of media ownership, state restrictions on the means of journalistic production and distribution, and the levels of state control through allocation of advertising or subsidies would be part of this question.
Further, what are the laws relating to encryption and telecom security, as well as to intermediary liability, and how do they affect free expression?

Understanding Free Expression

To be examined here is the question of how freedom of expression is perceived by people. What is the extent to which people believe the right is available to them — as balanced by conceivably conflicting rights such as privacy?

One part of proceeding on this would be to track a set of activist bloggers, gauging their take on various issues.
Another part would include tracking public opinion through comments pages on articles relating to free speech issues; taking a survey or coordinating focus group research. However, this is by no means the most reliable way to gauge the same and is, in particular, one area that will require an appropriate methodology to be developed by the fellows in consultation with the partner organizations.

Both these components are essential in being able to proceed with the third aspect, mentioned below.

Understanding and Facilitating Movements

This final aspect will involve looking at how free expression advocates come together, or fail to do so.

Is there a defined activist community in the region?
If not, what are the possible reasons behind failure of collaboration or organization? Have there been attempts towards the same?

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Google Policy Fellowship program?

The Google Policy Fellowship program offers students interested in Internet and technology related policy issues with an opportunity to spend their summer working on these issues at the Centre for Internet and Society at Bangalore. Students will work for a period of ten weeks starting from June 2011. The research agenda for the program is based on legal and policy frameworks in the region connected to the ground-level perception of free expression.
Applications for the Fellowship should carry these:

Statement of Purpose: A brief write-up outlining about your interest and qualifications for the programme including the relevant academic, professional and extracurricular experiences. As part of the write-up, also explain on what you hope to gain from participation in the programme and what research work concerning free expression online you would like to further through this programme. (About 1200 words max).
Resume
Three references

Important Dates
What is the program timeline?

March 27, 2011:	Student application deadline; applications must be received by midnight 00:00 GMT.
April 18, 2011:	Student applicants are notified of the status of their applications.
June 2011:	Students begin their fellowship with the host organization (start date to be determined by students and the host organization); Google issues initial student stipends.
July 2011:	Mid-term evaluations; Google issues mid-term stipends.
August 2011:	Final evaluations; Google issues final stipends.

EligibilityI am an International student can I apply and participate in the program?

Are there any age restrictions on participating?

Yes. You must be 18 years of age or older by 1 January 2011 to be eligible to participate in Google Policy Fellowship program in 2011.

Are there citizenship requirements for the Fellowship?

For the time being, we are only accepting students eligible to work in India (e.g. Indian citizens, permanent residents of India, and individuals presently holding an Indian student visa. Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet the criteria.

Who is eligible to participate as a student in Google Policy Fellowship program?

In order to participate in the program, you must be a student. Google defines a student as an individual enrolled in or accepted into an accredited institution including (but not necessarily limited to) colleges, universities, masters programs, PhD programs and undergraduate programs. Eligibility is based on enrollment in an accredited university by 1 January 2011.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program?

In order to participate in the program, you must be a student (see Google's definition of a student above). You must also be eligible to work in India (see section on citizen requirements for fellowship above). Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet this criterion.

I have been accepted into an accredited post-secondary school program, but have not yet begun attending. Can I still take part in the program?

As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of 1 January 2011, you are eligible to participate in the program.

I graduate in the middle of the program. Can I still participate?

As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of 1 January 2011, you are eligible to participate in the program.

Payments, Forms, and Other Administrative Stuff

How do payments work*?

Google will provide a stipend of USD 7,500 equivalent to each Fellow for the summer.

Accepted students in good standing with their host organization will receive a USD 2,500 stipend payable shortly after they begin the Fellowship in June 2011.
Students who receive passing mid-term evaluations by their host organization will receive a USD 1,500 stipend shortly after the mid-term evaluation in July 2011.
Students who receive passing final evaluations by their host organization and who have submitted their final program evaluations will receive a USD 3,500 stipend shortly after final evaluations in August 2011.

*While the three step payment structure given here corresponds to the one in the United States, disbursement of the amount may be altered as felt necessary.

What documentation is required from students?

I would like to use the work I did for my Google Policy Fellowship to obtain course credit from my university. Is this acceptable?

Host Organizations

What is Google's relationship with the Centre for Internet and Society?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/google-policy-fellowship

Google now stalks your street

praskrishna — 2011-05-31T06:20:18Z

Bangalore is the first city in the country to be mapped for Street View. This news was published by the Hindu on May 27, 2011.

Not too long from now, Google Map will allow you a sneak peak into the smallest cul-de-sac in the city, zoom into the most popular restaurant on the block, or even check out a home you want to rent.

Google on Thursday announced it will begin collecting images in Bangalore for its controversial Street View service, which will be offered on Google Maps. The service will allow you to explore places through its 360-degree, street-level imagery.

This, it intends to do by using cars and "trikes" (three-wheel pedicab) fitted with a camera system on top. The vehicles "will start gathering images from select locations in and around Bangalore, such as the Nrityagram Dance Village over the next few weeks," Google said in a communiqué.

"We decided to start driving in Bangalore because it is the IT capital of India and feel that the IT-savvy users will be able to leverage the benefits of the product to the fullest," said Vinay Goel, Product Head, Google India. Street View, introduced in May 2007 in the U.S., has since expanded to 27 countries. "It is useful for urban development planners, law enforcement agencies, house-hunters, and travellers," Mr. Goel said.

Privacy issues

But is Google venturing too close for comfort? The service has begun to draw criticism over a host of privacy issues here, just as it has done in several countries where it is in use. This despite Google assurance that it will blur people's faces and licence plates so they are not identified.

However, in the absence of a broad privacy law, there is no mechanism by which the Indian Government can hold Google and its service accountable, explains Sunil Abraham, Director of the Centre for Internet and Society.

"For example, the Japanese Government found that Google's footage was recording the insides of people's homes," he pointed out. Subsequently, the Japanese Government decided to reduce the height of the camera by 16 inches.

Individual concepts

"Every country has a different concept of privacy and any project by Google has to adhere to the local sensibility. But India lacks the mechanism to do so." Further, Mr. Abraham said, given the fact that 90 per cent of the population is offline, and a third illiterate, a Google logo on the van may not serve as implicit consent (unlike in the U.S. where it is a widely recognised brand).

Not real time

According to Google, it protects privacy because Street View images are not real time, but are between a few months to a few years old. There are "easily accessible tools that [allow] users to request further blurring of any image that features the user, their family, their car or their home," says the Google Maps website. "Users can also request the removal of images that feature inappropriate content (for example, nudity or violence)."

Read the original news published in the Hindu here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/google-stalks-street

Google move is not good for netizens, say experts

praskrishna — 2012-02-03T10:03:17Z

Google's plan to merge data across 60 of its properties, which was announced last week, has drawn criticism from experts on the Internet, who are saying that this is detrimental to privacy. Balaji Narasimhan wrote this in the Hindu Business Line. The article was published on 31 January 2012.

"Google is doing what is good for shareholders. This is not positive for netizens,” said Mr Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society. “People like you and me have to either accept it or leave."

But what are the alternatives? Mr Somick Goswami, Director Consulting, PwC India, didn't want to comment directly on Google, but in the larger context of data privacy, he asked, "Do users want a free Internet or control over content? There is a lot of advocacy going around it. End of the day, when using the Internet, there has to be trust."

One way that Google could build trust could be by using something pertaining to loyalty, which retailers use in the real world in order to woo customers.

Mr Ram Menon, Executive Vice-President and Chief Technology Officer of Tibco, said that many of his clients make offers that are in context with what users want.

"For example, if you like cappuccino and this knowledge is known to a vendor, he can offer you a cappuccino when you walk past the store." He said that in such cases, there was no affront to privacy because the offer is relevant and in context. "You are a member and have opted in," he said.

Perhaps, the fact that all of Google's services are free has something to do with the privacy issue, pointed out the Australian Privacy Foundation. As its site privacy.org.au noted, "The company's business model is based on advertising revenue. Users pay no fees for their use of the services."

And the merger of its 60 policies apart, there is another issue worrying users — new acquisitions. As Mr Abraham pointed out, “When I was browsing Silk Smitha before YouTube was acquired by Google, I had no idea that one day this information would be known to Google."

And the issue becomes more serious in the context of a growing mobile workforce. As the Australian Privacy Foundation said, "Android mobile phones effectively trap users into having a Google user account."

Using Google services on a mobile – especially Google Latitude, a service that allows you to enable your friends to view your current location – allows Google to track your movements.

And since Google is predominantly an advertising-driven company, it could be argued that one day they might share information about you with a third party, enabling them to market to you more effectively, though this may not necessarily be done with your explicit permission – and this means that you may get an offer for products even if you have not opted in for such a service.

What can be done? Mr Abraham rued the fact that there are no specific laws to safeguard users.

"India needs privacy laws. In the US, law makers will create a fuss. In India, we are at the mercy of companies."

The original was published in the Hindu Business Line. Sunil Abraham is quoted in this article.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/google-move-is-not-good-for-netizens-say-experts

Google Hangout with Ashoka Fellow Sunil Abraham

praskrishna — 2012-06-20T09:16:33Z

Sunil Abraham, an Ashoka Fellow from India, visited the DC Office and shared his work on public accountability, access, and learning at the intersection of internet and society.

Watch the video below

Click to see the original from YouTube.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/google-hangout-with-sunil

Google Hangout on Technology and Jobs

praskrishna — 2017-03-29T10:38:42Z

Vanya Rakesh was a speaker at a Google hangout discussion held on Friday, March 24th, 2017 on "Technology and Jobs" as part of a project that ICRIER is doing with World Bank headquarters and several institutions across the world, titled “Jobs for Development”.

Video

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/google-hangout-on-technology-and-jobs

Google brings tabs to sneak advertisements into your inbox

praskrishna — 2013-07-30T11:05:34Z

The shift away from desktop browsing to mobile web has put the squeeze on Google's advertising revenues from traditional payper-click . But the tech giant is trying to set things right by sneaking ads into the user's inbox.

This article by Indu Nandakumar was published in the Economic Times on July 30, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The latest example involves the introduction of tabs in Google-owned popular email service Gmail. Google places both emails as well as advertisements under a promotions tab in the inbox and users find it difficult to distinguish between the two.

Industry observers said this tactic, which has already become the talk of the ad industry, signals Google's renewed attempt at tackling what has been considered the company's biggest weakness: slowing ad sales from desktops.

"Google earnings show that its clickrates have gone down over the past two quarters, so this is possibly a great way to catch-up and place ads right in front of its users to increase sales," said Prasanth Mohanachandran, founder and chief executive of AgencyDigi, a Mumbai-based digital communications agency.

In an emailed response, Google said the new ads replace the ones that were earlier shown on top under the old design. Last week, the Mountain View, California-based Google reported second-quarter earnings that fell short of analyst estimates mainly due to slowness in desktop search and a fall in ad prices. With over 90% of its revenues coming from advertisements, getting people to click on them is crucial for Google.

Over the past few quarters, companies like Facebook and Google have been trying to improve their mobile advertising revenues as more users access web services on smartphones. On Wednesday, rival internet firm Facebook said mobile ads generated 41% of its revenue last quarter, up from 14% from last year.

Internet privacy experts said the decision to place advertisements that are disguised as emails is a "sneaky way of getting more users to click on ads" as Google tries to mitigate the effects of slowing ad sales on desktops. "Users would often mistake these advertisements for actual emails.

May be that's the cost of using a free product ," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research firm Centre for Internet and Society. "Previously, ads used to look like ads. Of late, Google has been trying to mix ads with content and that's where the privacy angle comes into play," he added.

A Google spokesman said these ads aren't exactly the same as emails because they don't take up inbox storage. "The new ads act like the old normal inbox ads. When people click the ads, they will either be directed to an advertiser's landing page or the ad will expand within Gmail," the company said in an emailed response.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-july-30-2013-indu-nandakumar-google-brings-tabs-to-sneak-advertisements-into-your-inbox

Google aims to win 40% of India with Android One

praskrishna — 2014-09-12T05:50:23Z

When Google launches its low-cost Android One devices next Monday, Indian users will be able to give voice commands, type messages and use almost all major mobile applications in Hindi.

The article by Varun Aggarwal was published in the Economic Times on September 11, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

This is because the California, US based internet giant is hoping that the devices, which have been tailor-made for emerging markets, will help it capture the non-English speaking user base in the country.

Over 40 per cent of the population in India lists Hindi as its first language. Android One will come bundled with local language support and users will not have to download any external application to access their smartphone in Hindi, a person with knowledge of the development told ET.

"Google has been constantly working on developing more salience around Indic computing, providing regional language support to users for its various products and services," a Google spokesman said in an email. Internet users in India could increase by nearly a fourth if local language content is provided, according to a 2014 report from Internet and Mobile Association of India and IMRB International.

In rural India, 43 per cent said they would adopt the Internet if they had content in their local language. Local language consumption growth is estimated to be more than four times that of English, according to Google. The company is trying to take a lead over its competitors by taking advantage of this trend.

Google is working to create more Hindi content online through local partnerships and is expected to launch more products keeping the Indic audience in mind.

"So far different vendors were offering different ingredients of the Indian language meal and users were expected to cook it themselves," said Venkatesh Hariharan, founder of Alchemy Business Solutions, a company which works on Indic computing and technology for development.

"If Google offers a comprehensive experience that works out-of-the-box in Indian languages that could attract millions of new users." Indic computing has so far been limited to enthusiasts who had to download a keyboard from one site, a local language dictionary from another and fonts from a third.

"If we really want widespread adoption, then using a mobile phone in Indian languages should be as easy as using it in English," Hariharan said. This is what Google hopes to achieve by introducing devices in partnership with Indian handset makers Micromax, Spice and Karbonn, which will launch the Android One devices for Rs 5,000 to Rs 7,000 next week.

The availability of such devices will also help internet companies such as Facebook and Yahoo promote their products in Indian languages. Facebook currently supports 13 Indian languages. "We are focused on enabling all major Indic languages and on actively promoting them on various platforms," a Facebook spokesperson said.

On the other hand, Yahoo shifted its multilingual support from websites to only mobile apps. For instance, the Yahoo Mail mobile app supports eight Indian languages.

"We can confirm we recently closed down the Indian language sites to better focus on our core offerings," a Yahoo representative said. While experts welcomed Google's push towards Hindi, some want the technologies to be open source.

"Now you'll have some people who will specialise on building Indic computing tools on Google and others doing the same on some other platform," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore based research organisation, The Centre for Internet and Society. "At least Google, which seems to have understood and taken advantage of free software, should give back to the free software movement."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-economic-times-varun-aggarwal-september-11-2014-google-aims-to-win-india-with-android-one

Good Intentions, Recalcitrant Text – II: What India’s ITU Proposal May Mean for Internet Governance

geetha — 2014-11-03T07:07:16Z

The UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is hosting its Plenipotentiary Conference (PP-14) this year in South Korea. At PP-14, India introduced a new draft resolution on ITU's Role in Realising Secure Information Society. The Draft Resolution has grave implications for human rights and Internet governance. Geetha Hariharan explores.

Disclaimer and update (2 November 2014): India's Draft Resolution was discussed during the meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Internet-related Resolutions at the ITU Plenipot on the evening of November 1, 2014 (KST). After the discussion, India revised the text of the resolution, seeking to address concerns raised by ITU member states. The revised resolution may be found here. However, this blog post was written with reference to the original text of India's Draft Resolution.

***

As I mentioned in my last post, India’s Draft Resolution on ‘ITU’s Role in Realising Secure Information Society’ raises security and equity concerns. The Draft Resolution has 3 security concerns: (i) security weaknesses in the network architecture that permit “camouflaging the identity of the originator of the communication” and make “tracing of communication difficult”; (ii) non-systematic, non-contiguous allocation of naming, numbering and addressing resources on the Internet, which makes it difficult to identify both the users and what states the IP addresses are located in; (iii) non-local routing and address resolution relating to traffic originating and terminating in the same country. Op. §§1, 3-7 seek to address these. It also identifies the present system of allocation of naming, numbering and addressing resources as inequitable, unfair, unjust and undemocratic (Op. §2 of the Draft Resolution offers a solution). I discussed some human rights implications of India’s Draft Resolution in my last post.

In this post, I explore the implications of the Draft Resolution for Internet governance and multi-stakeholder approaches (most notably, an equal footing model).[1] Given the uncertainties around defining multi-stakeholderism for Internet governance, this is rather ambitious. So I will try to point to concerns with certain textual interpretations of the Draft Resolution, map that against the positions India’s representatives have taken on Internet governance in the past, and the motivations/concerns that underlie the tabling of the Draft Resolution. This Resolution may not be the best way to allay India's concerns, for there are technical and rights implications. But the concerns it raises are worth discussion and knowledge, and at forums where concerns are heard, acknowledged and discussed collectively. The text of the Draft Resolution and its attendant implications are not, then, the sole subjects of this post.

The Draft Resolution and Internet governance:

The text of the Draft Resolution is problematic. Many of its clauses may be seen as taking positions against multi-stakeholder approaches to Internet governance. Introducing such a resolution at the ITU may itself bring back memories of the controversies surrounding Resolution 3 of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), 2012.[2] In 3 ways, the text of the Draft Resolution has indications for multi-stakeholder approaches.

First, the Draft Resolution frames issues primarily from the perspective security. In its preamble, the Draft Resolution makes several references to security threats posed by and on the Internet. For instance, it points to the ability of the network to “camouflage the identity of the originator of the communication” (Pream. §(e) [recognizing]), as well as national security concerns in the present-day system of routing Internet traffic through multiple countries (Pream. §§(f) and (g), [recognizing]). The apparent difficulty in tracing IP addresses, due to their random allocation, is another concern (Pream. §(h), [recognizing]). Among the “significant public policy issues” identified in telecom/ICT management, “security and safety of the Telecom/ICTs” is specifically noted (Pream. §(i) [considering]). In the Context note to the Draft Resolution and in several places in the Preamble, there are references to ITU Resolution 130 (‘Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of information and communication technologies’) and ITU’s Cyber-security Agenda. Given the (legitimate or otherwise) disproportionate involvement of governments and not other stakeholders in matters of cyber-security, the framing of issues from a security perspective may lend itself to worries for multi-stakeholderism. Specifically, the Draft Resolution notes: “ensuring security of ICT networks is sovereign right of Member States” (Pream. §(b) [recognizing]).

Second, the Draft Resolution emphasizes the sovereign right of states to regulate and control telecom/ICT. It says, for instance, “it is the sovereign right of each state to regulate its telecommunication” (Pream. §(b) [considering]). With regard to the Internet, the Context note to the Draft Resolution (page 1) considers the Internet to be synonymous with telecom/ICTs: “the Telecom/ICTs, which in common lexicon is used interchangeably many times as Internet…”. Public telecom networks managed by telecom service providers, interconnected with other networks, are necessary for “proper functioning of a telecom network resources namely, among others, naming, numbering and addressing” (Pream. §(k) [considering]). It is worth noting that the sovereign authority of states over Internet public policy issues is settled text from §35 of the Tunis Agenda, though expressing it as synonymous with telecom may lead to possibilities of licensing and registration, which Bulgaria, for instance, does not do.

Third, the Draft Resolution identifies issues of equity and fairness in the allocation of Internet resources such as naming, numbering and addressing (Pream. §(g) [consdering], Op. §2). It states that to correct this inequity, “facilitation and collaboration among international, inter-governmental organizations and individual member states to ensure planning, implementation, monitoring and cooperation in its policies” is required (Pream. §(g) [considering]). In operative paragaphs, our Draft Resolution calls for collaboration with “all the concerned stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including naming, numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, democratic and transparent” (Op. §2). One may pay attention to the oversight over implementation and the necessity of inter-governmental involvement in planning and monitoring as problematic to iterations of multi-stakeholderism.

These concerns are valid and legitimate, and it is desirable that the text of the resolution be altered to address them. The text should also be altered to address the human rights concerns I point out in my previous post. But human rights enforcement or implementation is within the domain of states, though civil society may be a careful watchdog. The Draft Resolution's text, most certainly, will face certain oppositions: for instance, that it is outside the scope and mandate of the ITU. That the ITU does not deal with content regulation – and this issue touches upon content – will be mentioned. That Internet governance is already being discussed and performed in multiple other multi-stakeholder fora, such as ICANN, the NRO and RIRs, IGF and WSIS, will be emphasized. That the Draft Resolution implicates national security concerns will be mentioned as well. But as an aside, on national security: under international law, states always mention their prerogative over national security, and so as a matter of international custom, national security is outside the scope of agreements unless expressly surrendered.

At the same time, debates around the role of ITU in Internet governance are not new, and those familiar will remember the ITU’s views right before the creation of ICANN (also see Mueller, Ruling the Root 145-48 (2002)), Resolution 3 of the WCIT, and the constant tug-of-war since then. The new Secretary-General of the ITU, Mr. Houlin Zhao, wrote a note in October 2004, before the Tunis phase of the WSIS, justifying ITU’s involvement in Internet governance, advocating that IPv6 address blocks be allocated to countries. Mr. Zhao describes, with specific examples, ITU's role in the development and widespread growth of the Internet. He takes the examples of standards developed within the ITU and ITU's policy role in liberalisation and spread of telecommunications (such as Articles 4 & 9 of the 1988 ITRs).

Mr. Zhao’s concrete proposals are rendered inapplicable by the creation of the NRO and RIRs, and the growth and entrenchment of ICANN. But it may be argued that his principled justifications for ITU involvement remain. It is these that India hopes to highlight, I was told, along with the inequities in resource allocation (IPv4 was spoken of), and the disproportionate weight some states enjoy in Internet governance. Her concerns are, I am told, also shared by some other states. Given that the text exhibits a less-than-friendly approach to multi-stakeholderism, India's previous positions on the issue are of interest. While this would not correct the snags in the Draft Resolution's text, allaying these concerns may be ideal to craft an inclusive and transparent multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance.

India and Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance:

India’s position on multi-stakeholder models for Internet governance is a matter of some obscurity. Statements at various forums exhibit a certain disagreement – or at the least, lack of engagement – among India’s ministries on our position on multi-stakeholder approaches, particularly the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY), both within the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT). While both the MEA and DOT have been cautious supporters of a diluted form of multi-stakeholderism (they have repeatedly emphasized §35 of the Tunis Agenda), DeitY has been more open in entertaining multi-stakeholder approaches for Internet governance.

At the 66^th session of UN General Assembly, Mr. Dushyant Singh, Member of India’s Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party, presented our proposal for a Committee on Internet-related Policies. The proposal sought the establishment of a UN committee comprising 50 member-states, with advisory groups including the private sector and civil society, to deal with Internet-related matters.[3] Though India was not opposed to multi-stakeholder advisories in its CIRP proposal, it was less than inviting in this regard.

At NETmundial (April 2014), the Indian government’s contribution document highlighted §35 of the Tunis Agenda, which delineates ‘roles and responsibilities’ of ‘respective stakeholders’ – i.e., governments (with whom reside “sovereign policy authority”), the private sector (technical and economic development of the Internet) and civil society (grassroots participation). At NETmundial, Mr. Vinay Kwatra of the MEA echoed this, also noting the lack of consensus on what multi-stakeholderism means for Internet governance (page 64).

Admittedly, this is a legitimate concern. Internet governance at various fora does not seem to have a clear answer on what multi-stakeholderism means. The debate was/is alive, for instance, at NETmundial 2014, the ICANN-convened IANA transition process, the World Economic Forum’s new NETmundial Initiative, and in the many calls and suggestions (pages 38-46) made over the years on strengthening the IGF (see also, Malcolm, Multi-stakeholder Governance and the IGF (2008), chapter 6). It is hardly surprising then, that India and other states raise this as a concern.

With regard to multi-stakeholderism, the DeitY in India has been the outlier. Speaking at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul, Mr. R.S. Sharma, Secretary (DeitY), expressed “no doubt that Internet Governance mechanism require the involvement of all the stakeholders, since the evolution of Internet has been a product of many different diverse groups working together in a loosely coordinated manner”, advocating strengthening of the IGF and pointing to India’s proposed India-IGF as an example of multi-stakeholderism at home. Most interestingly, Mr. Sharma did not focus on international Internet-related policies being the “sovereign policy authority of states”. Also in the transcripts of the four meetings of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation under the Committee for Science, Technology and Development (CSTD), I have been unable to find outright rejections of multi-stakeholder approaches, though India has not advocated multi-stakeholderism unequivocally either.

But this – the emphasis on “sovereign policy authority of states” in Internet governance – has been a consistent position for India, especially the MEA and DOT. Here at the ITU PP-14 as well, members of the Indian delegation also emphasized states’ sovereign monopoly over policy matters. “Why not take this to the ITU”, I was asked, as “many governments are uncomfortable” with the way Internet governance is being conducted at other fora. There are grave concerns, I was told, about the possibility of excessive control some governments have over both user and government data of other states (government-speak, of course, for the Snowden revelations).

These are, of course, concerns similar to those of authoritarian governments, or those reluctant to open up to multi-stakeholderism and looking for excuses to retain/increase government control. But it is equally possible that these concerns need not be limited only to such states. Perhaps for developing countries as well, these are real concerns. In conversation with members of the Indian delegation at the ITU Plenipot, I was able to discern 3 broad concerns. First, the definition of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. India has not shown herself comfortable with an all-out endorsement of multi-stakeholderism. This is troubling. Civil society and the private sector in India will attest to the difficulties in engaging with our government at all levels. For instance, seeking a place on India's delegation for the Plenipot proved a disheartening exercise for some members of India's civil society.

But there are also conflicting indications. India is in the process of instituting an India-IGF, and CIS' Executive Director, Sunil Abraham, is on the MAG. India expressed agreement, at least in informal conversation, to opening up ITU documents to the public on grounds of public interest. The Law Commission of India recently conducted a multi-stakeholder consultation on media laws in India, and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regularly conducts consultations, though the private sector is more active there. What is lacking in India, however, is a set of clear procedures and processes for multi-stakeholder engagement, particularly on Internet issues. Clear, public, accessible, foreseeable and predictable set of rules or processes on participation from civil society, private sector and academia would make a world of difference to multi-stakeholderism within India. But this lack should not blind states or other stakeholders to the genuineness of privacy/security or equity concerns - for instance, of the protection of our information from mass surveillance or the feasibility and actual participation of developing countries at many Internet governance fora.

Second, members of the delegation expressed concern over inequalities in the allocation of naming, numbering and addressing resources. While I am uncertain how IPv6 allocation falls within this concern, the inequalities of IPv4 allocations are well documented. To gather a sense of this, it would be useful to read chapter 5 of Professor DeNardis’ Protocol Politics, and to glance at Figure 5.7 (page 173). Africa controls, for instance, a mere 1% of all available IPv4 addresses, while North America and Europe control about 63%. A study on engagement from the Asia-Pacific in Internet standards organisations shows, for instance, greater participation from Western countries and from some states like Japan.[4] India and other states from Asia and Africa have lesser participation. Even at ICANN, with efforts to increase participation, meaningful engagement is still from a majority of Western countries. Perhaps states and other stakeholders on the other side of the table can address these concerns through clear, inclusive, non-discriminatory commitments and implementation.

Third, India emphasized how the Draft Resolution does not propose that ITU be involved in content management or resources control, but only seeks to systematize allocation by asking the ITU Secretary General to collaborate and coordinate with other Internet governance organisations to create a set of principles for fair, equitable, transparent and democratic - as well as secure - allocation of resources. ITU Resolution 101 already instructs the Secretary General to collaborate with relevant Internet governance organisations, and the Draft Resolution merely seeks to spell out his tasks. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, the text of the Draft Resolution is at odds with this intention of India's. By dint of its drafting, it gravely implicates human rights, as well as touching upon resource allocation oversight ("needs to be adhere to" in Op. §2). To reflect the above stated intention, the Draft Resolution would need to be redrafted.

Finally, the text of the Draft Resolution exhibits, unfortunately, a certain disregard for existing network architecture and efficiency within the Internet, and to the principles of a free, open and inter-operable and unified Internet, when it seeks to develop a network architecture that facilitates (domestic) localization of traffic-routing, address resolution and allocation of naming, numbering and addressing. An argument may, of course, be made in favour of efficiency and costs, including reduced latency. But it is clear that this has the potential to increase domestic surveillance capabilities and government censorship of content. In any case, traffic localization (if not local address resolution) can be achieved without ITU coordination: through Internet Exchange Points, and through more efficient and better-negotiated peering and transit arrangements (pages 14-17). Internationally coordinated rules for localized traffic routing is not necessary; you just need to have a more efficient Internet Exchange Point. How to get more ISPs to interconnect through India’s National Internet Exchange (NIXI) is one of the very questions that India’s Telecom Regulatory Authority has taken up in its recent consultation on expanding broadband access (page 49). So it is possible that India's concerns could be addressed without ITU involvement, though I am unsure of its impact on the global Internet.

The Draft Resolution will be discussed at the ITU Plenipot today. The discussion will allow India and sympathetic countries to raise several of their concerns relating to the present system of Internet governance, and the direction of its progress. I will report on these discussions upon their completion.

A Note on Limitations:

The aim of this post is to clarify. I would caution against its being the last word on anything, much less India’s positions on Internet governance. An issue as important as this needs far greater access to and confirmation from India’s government – and a more in-depth understanding of the politics – than I do, at the moment.

At the same time, India has not been a model for civil society engagement, as illustratively, the Narmada Bachao Andolan and/or P. Sainath’s evaluation of government policies in Everybody Loves a Good Drought reveal. It has been harder to effectively engage with India’s government than in many states in North America, Latin America and Europe. But I believe the complex dynamics of that is not unique to India. The NSA and GCHQ revelations (as an example of governmental trust deficit of unmatched proportions) have shown that where governments want to keep everyone out and oblivious, they do it well.

I am not in favour of a purely multilateral approach to Internet governance. But at the same time, I share concerns over definition and the evolution of processes as well, as I am sure others in civil society also do. Particularly on the issue of Internet governance and multi-stakeholderism, evidence reveals inconsistency among India’s various ministries. Until this is addressed by our government (hopefully in consultation with all concerned stakeholders), an open mind would probably be the best thing we - including states - could keep.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Sunil Abraham, Pranesh Prakash, Rishabh Dara, Arun Sukumar, Anja Kovacs and Parminder Jeet Singh for the freedom to bounce ideas, feedback and the many discussions about multi-stakeholder approaches and Internet governance. I also wish to acknowledge Samir Saran’s article in CFR, which offers an interesting perspective on India’s Draft Resolution.

[1] For this post, I will use ‘multi-stakeholder approaches’ as an umbrella term, but would urge readers to keep in mind the many uncertainties and disagreements about defining multi-stakeholderism for Internet governance. These disagreements exist among and within all stakeholders, including government and civil society. In addition to various iterations of the ‘equal footing model’, the model proposed in §35 of the Tunis Agenda is also multi-stakeholder, albeit in a different – and for many in civil society, less desirable – sense.

[2] For those unacquainted with WCIT, see Mueller, ITU Phobia: Why WCIT was derailed, Internet Governance Blog (18 December 2012), http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/18/itu-phobia-why-wcit-was-derailed/; Kleinwächter, WCIT and Internet governance: Harmless resolution or Trojan horse?, CircleID Blog (17 December 2012), http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121217_wcit_and_internet_governance_harmless_resolution_or_trojan_horse/.

[3] For a commentary, see Mueller, A United Nations Committee for Internet-related Policies? A Fair Assessment, Internet Governance Blog (29 October 2011), http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/10/29/a-united-nations-committee-for-internet-related-policies-a-fair-assessment/.

[4] Contreras, Divergent Patterns of Engagement in Internet Standardization: Japan, Korea and China. I am unable to find this paper online. Please email me for information.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/good-intentions-recalcitrant-text-2013-ii-what-india2019s-itu-proposal-may-mean-for-internet-governance

Good Intentions, Recalcitrant Text - I: Why India’s Proposal at the ITU is Troubling for Internet Freedoms

geetha — 2014-11-02T15:13:45Z

At the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference (‘PP-14’ or ‘Plenipot’) of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), India has tabled a draft proposal on “ITU’s Role in Realising Secure Information Society” [Document 98, dated 20 October 2014] (“Draft Resolution”). India’s proposal has incited a great deal of concern and discussion among Plenipot attendees, governments and civil society alike. Before offering my concerns and comments on the Draft Resolution, let us understand the proposal.

Our Draft Resolution identifies 3 security concerns with exchange of information and resource allocation on the Internet:

First, it is troubling for India that present network architecture has “security weaknesses” such as “camouflaging the identity of the originator of the communication”;[1] random IP address distribution also makes “tracing of communication difficult”;[2]
Second, India is concerned that under the present allocation system of naming, numbering and addressing resources on the Internet, it is impossible or at the very least, cumbersome to identify the countries to which IP address are allocated;[3]
Third, India finds it insecure from the point of view of national security that traffic originating and terminating in the same country (domestic traffic) often routes through networks overseas;[4] similarly, local address resolution also routes through IP addresses outside the country or region, which India finds troubling.[5]

In an effort to address these concerns, the Draft Resolution seeks to instruct the ITU Secretary General:

First, to develop and recommend a ‘traffic routing plan’ that can “effectively ensure the traceability of communication”;[6]
Second, to collaborate with relevant international and intergovernmental organisations to develop an “IP address plan” which facilitates identification of locations/countries to which IP addresses are allocated and coordinates allocation accordingly;[7]
Third, to develop and recommend “a public telecom network architecture” that localizes both routing[8] as well as address resolution[9] for local/domestic traffic to “within the country”.

Admittedly, our Draft Resolution is intended to pave a way for “systematic, fair and equitable allocation” of, inter alia, naming, numbering and addressing resources,[10] keeping in mind security and human rights concerns.[11] In an informal conversation, members of the Indian delegation echoed these sentiments. Our resolution does not, I was told, raise issues about the “concentration of control over Internet resources”, though “certain governments” have historically exercised more control. It also does not, he clarified, wish to make privacy or human rights a matter for discussion at the ITU. All that the Draft Resolution seeks to do is to equip the ITU with the mandate to prepare and recommend a “roadmap for the systematization” of allocation of naming, numbering and addressing resources, and for local routing of domestic traffic and address resolution. The framework for such mandate is that of security, given the ITU’s role in ‘building confidence and security in the use of ICTs’ under Action Line C5 of the Geneva Plan of Action, 2003.

Unfortunately, the text of our Draft Resolution, by dint of imprecision or lack of clarity, undermines India’s intentions. On three issues of utmost importance to the Internet, the Draft Resolution has unintended or unanticipated impacts. First, its text on tracing communication and identity of originators, and systematic allocation of identifiable IP address blocks to particular countries, has impacts on privacy and freedom of expression. Given Edward Snowden’s NSA files and the absence of adequate protections against government incursions or excesses into privacy,[12] either in international human rights law or domestic law, such text is troublesome. Second, it has the potential to undermine multi-stakeholder approaches to Internet governance by proposing text that refers almost exclusively to sovereign monopolies over Internet resource allocation, and finally, displays a certain disregard for network architecture and efficiency, and to principles of a free, open and unified Internet, when it seeks to develop global architecture that facilitates (domestic) localization of traffic-routing, address resolution and allocation of naming, numbering and addressing.

In this post, I will address the first concern of human rights implications of our Draft Resolution.

Unintended Implications for Privacy and Freedom of Expression:

India’s Draft Resolution has implications for individual privacy. At two different parts of the preamble, India expresses concerns with the impossibility of locating the user at the end of an IP address:

Pream. §(e): “recognizing… that the modern day packet networks, which at present have many security weaknesses, inter alia, camouflaging the identity of originator of the communication”;
Pream. §(h): “recognizing… that IP addresses are distributed randomly, that makes the tracing of communication difficult”.

The concerns here surround difficulties in tracking IP addresses due to the widespread use of NATs, as also the existence of IP anonymisers like Tor. Anonymisers like Tor permit individuals to cover their online tracks; they conceal user location and Internet activity from persons or governments conducting network surveillance or traffic analysis. For this reason, Tor has caused much discomfort to governments. Snowden used Tor while communicating with Laura Poitras. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning of Wikileaks fame is reported to have used Tor (page 24). Crypto is increasingly the safest – perhaps the only safe – avenue for political dissidents across the world; even Internet companies were coerced into governmental compliance. No wonder, then, that governments are doing all they can to dismantle IP anonymisers: the NSA and GCHQ have tried to break Tor; the Russian government has offered a reward to anyone who can.

Far be it from me to defend Tor blindly. There are reports suggesting that Tor is being used by offenders, and not merely those of the Snowden variety. But governments must recognize the very obvious trust deficit they face, especially after Snowden’s revelations, and consider the implications of seeking traceability and identity/geolocation for every IP address, in a systematic manner. The implications are for privacy, a right guaranteed by Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Privacy has been recognized by the UN General Assembly as applicable in cases of surveillance, interception and data collection, in Pream. §4 of its resolution The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age. But many states do not have robust privacy protections for individuals and data. And while governments may state the necessity to create international policy to further effective criminal investigations, such an aim cannot be used to nullify or destroy the rights of privacy and free speech guaranteed to individuals. Article 5(1), ICCPR, codifies this principle, when it states that States, groups or persons may not “engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein…”.

Erosion of privacy has a chilling effect on free speech [New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254], so free speech suffers too. Particularly with regard to Tor and identification of IP address location and users, anonymity in Internet communications is at issue. At the moment, most states already have anonymity-restrictions, in the form of identification and registration for cybercafés, SIM cards and broadband connections. For instance, Rule 4 of India’s Information Technology (Guidelines for Cyber Cafe) Rules, 2011, mandates that we cannot not use computers in a cybercafé without establishing our identities. But our ITU Draft Resolution seeks to dismantle the ability of Internet users to operate anonymously, be they political dissidents, criminals or those merely acting on their expectations of privacy. Such dismantling would be both violative of international human rights law, as well as dangerous for freedom of expression and privacy in principle. Anonymity is integral to democratic discourse, held the US Supreme Court in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission [514 U.S. 334 (1995)].[13] Restrictions on Internet anonymity facilitate communications surveillance and have a chilling effect on the free expression of opinions and ideas, wrote Mr. Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (¶¶ 48-49).

So a law or international policy for blanket identification and traceability of IP addresses has grave consequences for and prima facie violates privacy, anonymity and freedom of speech. But these rights are not absolute, and can be validly restricted. And because these human rights are implicated, the ITU with its lack of expertise in the area may not be the adequate forum for discussion or study.

To be valid and justified interference, any law, policy or order interfering with privacy and free speech must meet the standards of reasonableness and proportionality, even if national security were the government’s legitimate aim, laid down in Articles 19(3) and 17 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) [Toonen v. Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (1994), ¶6.4]. And as the European Court of Human Rights found in Weber & Saravia v. Germany [Application no. 54934/00, 29 June 2006 (ECHR), ¶95], law or executive procedure that enables surveillance without sufficient safeguards is prima facie unreasonable and disproportionate. Re: anonymity, in Delfi AS v. Estonia [Application no. 64569/09, 17 February 2014, ¶83], while considering the liability of an Internet portal for offensive anonymous comments, the ECHR has emphasized the importance of balancing freedom of expression and privacy. It relied on certain principles such as “contribution to a debate of general interest, subject of the report, the content, form and consequences of the publication” to test the validity of government’s restrictions.

The implications of the suggested text of India’s Draft Resolution should then be carefully thought out. And this is a good thing. For one must wonder why governments need perfect traceability, geolocation and user identification for all IP addresses. Is such a demand really different from mass or blanket surveillance, in scale and government tracking ability? Would this not tilt the balance of power strongly in favour of governments against individuals (citizens or non-citizens)? This fear must especially arise in the absence of domestic legal protections, both in human rights, and criminal law and procedure. For instance, India’s Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) has Section 66A, which criminalizes offensive speech, as well as speech that causes annoyance or inconvenience. Arguably, arrests under Section 66A have been arbitrary, and traceability may give rise to a host of new worries.

In any event, IP addresses and users can be discerned under existing domestic law frameworks. Regional Internet Registries (RIR) such as APNIC allocate blocks of IP addresses to either National Internet Registries (NIR – such as IRINN for India) or to ISPs directly. The ISPs then allocate IP addresses dynamically to users like you and me. Identifying information for these ISPs is maintained in the form of WHOIS records and registries with RIRs or NIRs, and this information is public. ISPs of most countries require identifying information from users before Internet connection is given, i.e., IP addresses allocated (mostly by dynamic allocation, for that is more efficient). ISPs of some states are also regulated; in India, for instance, ISPs require a licence to operate and offer services.

If any government wished, on the basis of some reasonable cause, to identify a particular IP address or its user, then the government could first utilize WHOIS to obtain information about the ISP. Then ISPs may be ordered to release specific IP address locations and user information under executive or judicial order. There are also technical solutions, such as traceroute or IP look-up that assist in tracing or identifying IP addresses. Coders, governments and law enforcement must surely be aware of better technology than I.

If we take into account this possibility of geolocation of IP addresses, then the Draft Resolution’s motivation to ‘systematize’ IP address allocations on the basis of states is unclear. I will discuss the implication of this proposal, and that of traffic and address localization, in my next post.

[1] Pream. §(e), Draft Resolution: “recognizing… that the modern day packet networks, which at present have many security weaknesses, inter alia, camouflaging the identity of originator of the communication”.

[2] Pream. §(h), Draft Resolution: “recognizing… that IP addresses are distributed randomly, that makes the tracing of communication difficult”.

[3] Op. §1, Draft Resolution: “instructs the Secretary General… to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP addresses accordingly”.

[4] Pream. §(g), Draft Resolution: “recognizing… that communication traffic originating and terminating in a country also many times flows outside the boundary of a country making such communication costly and to some extent insecure from national security point of view”.

[5] Pream. §(f), Draft Resolution: “recognizing… that even for local address resolution at times, system has to use resources outside the country which makes such address resolution costly and to some extent insecure from national security perspective”.

[6] Op. §6, Draft Resolution: “instructs the Secretary General… to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of communication”.

[7] Op. §1, Draft Resolution; see note 3.

[8] Op. §5, Draft Resolution: “instructs the Secretary General… to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country remains within the country”.

[9] Op. §4, Draft Resolution: “instructs the Secretary General… to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes place within the country”.

[10] Context Note to Draft Resolution, ¶3: “Planning and distribution of numbering and naming resources in a systematic, equitable, fair and just manner amongst the Member States…”

[11] Context Note to Draft Resolution, ¶2: “…there are certain areas that require critical attention to move in the direction of building the necessary “Trust Framework” for the safe “Information Society”, where privacy, safety are ensured”.

[12] See, for instance, Report of the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights (“OHCHR”), Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, A/HRC/27/37 (30 June 2014), ¶34-35, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A.HRC.27.37_en.pdf. See esp. note 30 of the Report, ¶35.

[13] Many thorny political differences exist between the US and many states (including India and Kenya, who I am told has expressed preliminary support for the Draft Resolution) with regard to Internet governance. Irrespective of this, the US Constitution’s First Amendment and judicial protections to freedom of expression remain a yardstick for many states, including India. India, for instance, has positively referred to the US Supreme Court’s free speech protections in many of its decisions; ex. see Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1963 Cri. L.J. 329; R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/good-intentions-going-awry-i-why-india2019s-proposal-at-the-itu-is-troubling-for-internet-freedoms

Gone in a flash

praskrishna — 2011-04-20T04:58:48Z

Net-savvy crowds gather in public places for moments of wacky fun, then vanish. This article by Neha Thirani was published in the Times of India Crest Edition on April 16, 2011.

It's an ordinary day at the MGF mall in Gurgaon, when a group of fifteen people suddenly appears carrying lanterns made from discarded plastic bottles and starts passing them along in relay fashion. Starting from the plaza in front of the mall, the crowd goes into the metro station nearby and back again, and then suddenly disperses, attracting amused stares from befuddled passersby. This lantern-wielding crowd is a flash mob, a global phenomenon that has now hit India.

So is this part of a mass social experiment? Political movement? Performance art? Pointless fun? Malini Kochupillai and Kanishka Prasad, both professors at the Sushant School of Art and Architecture in Gurgaon who orchestrated the event, say it's an effort to add a modicum of vibrancy to otherwise ignored public places, reclaiming the space for public use. Along with their students, the duo has organised about a dozen such 'flash mobs'.

For the uninitiated, a flash mob appears to be entirely random - a group of people, performing an unusual and seemingly pointless act and then dispersing. For those in the know, the flash mob is mobilised by an organiser, who brings together a crowd of people at a predefined location and time via social media, viral emails or mass texting. The crowd then carries out a scripted series of actions. The participants are typically strangers and the purpose is usually satire. Their actions transform a public place for the period of the performance, and engender discussion at the unexpected.

This rather quirky social phenomenon, popular in the US and Europe, originated in 2003 when Bill Wasik, senior editor of Harper's Magazine, organised the first successful flash mob in Macy's department store. Over a hundred people converged on the store, gathered over an expensive rug and pretended to be shopping for a 'love rug' for their shared apartment. Wasik's aim was apolitical. Through amusement, he wanted to question notions of conformity and the hipster culture of wanting to be a part of the 'next big thing'. Since then, there have been hugely successful flash mobs all over Europe and America. The biggest recorded flash mob has been the International Pillow Fight Day, which took place on March 22, 2008 in over 25 cities simultaneously. More recently, Egypt has seen a series of flash mobs who left security forces befuddled by their silent protests.

While the word was officially coined in 2003, the phenomenon can be traced back to 18th century England where workers in an assembly line would stitch secret messages into garments to plan a congregation of strangers.

Nishant Shah, research director for the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, says the growth in places of globalised consumption parallels the formation of flash mobs. "We can call malls places of public consumption, but at the back of our minds is the uneasy thought that the sign reads - rights of entry reserved. The mall, then, is only for certain public, " says Shah. "What flash mobs do is abuse the space - subverting the intention of the space that they are orchestrated in. "

This social experiment that has now made its way to metros across the country has been loosely related to locations of consumerism. The first ever flash mob in India took place on October 4, 2003 when a group of over 60 people swarmed the then newly built Crossroads mall in Mumbai. The flash mobbers shocked the malls security guards when they inexplicably starting screaming into their cellphones vague directions such as: "Infosys becho ek hazaar, and SBI gheun tak don she. " This was followed by some frenzied dancing, and a moment later, they were gone.

New media professional Noel Braganza, 26, organised a flash mob in the main courtyard of Phoenix Mills, Mumbai on Independence Day last year. Along with his colleague Nicole, Braganza spread the message over social media entirely;"We didn't take any prior permission, and this was possible because we organised it around Independence Day - our concept was patriotic, not disruptive, " says Braganza. At 4 pm on August 15, 2010, a crowd of over one hundred people, dressed in tri-color, lined up in rows in the courtyard of Pheonix Mills, sang the national anthem and then dispersed. Though most were there by design, some of the shoppers present joined spontaneously. "There was a huge snaking queue outside Big Bazaar that stopped in its tracks and started singing. "

The Urban Gorillaz - as the Gurgaon group is called - has organised its events with a particular focus on reclaiming spaces that have largely been ignored, or usurped by private developers. "Most public spaces in Delhi are decrepit and in desperate need of refurbishment, " says Kochupillai. "Perhaps increased use of these spaces will push the authorities to look beyond roads, flyovers and parking lots and give pedestrians an equally deserving space in the public realm. " The group encourages people to engage with the spaces available to them so that they do not become unused and unsafe.

By studying what prevents or promotes the use of public space - such as movement patterns, active/ inactive zones and traffic interference in pedestrian areas - the group hopes to encourage architects and urban planners to create spaces where people can relax without feeling like they are trespassing or encroaching. "A flash mob says that you can create public spaces but we will decide how we will use them, " says Nishant Shah. "It gives a certain sense of power to the user who is no longer a consumer but an architect of the space. "

Started as an exercise in an architecture class at the Sushant School of Art and Architecture, the Urban Gorillaz facebook group has grown to over 400 members.

Up until now, they have orchestrated over ten flash mobs doing a variety of random acts from exercising in the main courtyard of Heritage city, flying paper planes in an office complex, sketching people passing by in a mall, creating installations for passersby to paint and building a canopy on a sidewalk with rope and bamboo. The one which attracted the most attention was during the Commonwealth Games, where they organised the 'Common Man Games' at Nehru Place to entertain Delhi citizens who were sidelined during the games. The games included track and field and pitthu.

"The first reaction of most people is what are you selling or promoting? And I reply that I am promoting public space, " says Kochupillai. "On occasions when guards have asked us to stop, we simply move into an area that is not under their jurisdiction. " The group has not encountered much antagonism, with most people amused rather than angry. Pragya Vig, 19, is a member of the group and a second year student at the college. "It set me thinking - why aren't we using the public spaces?" says Vig.

In the coming month, the Urban Gorillaz are planning flash mobs in the metro to raise awareness for a women's right to personal space.

Not all flash mobs have any apparent rationale. In the week after the death of Michael Jackson, Bangalore saw a spontaneous flash mob. At every red light signal, whenever the traffic would stop, people would suddenly come together and perform popular Michael Jackson dance moves. When the light changed, they would be gone in a flash.

Read the article in the Times of India

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/changing-tide

GoldenEye ransomware attack hit operations at Pipavav Port, JNPT

praskrishna — 2017-07-06T22:53:13Z

Shipping ministry says the GoldenEye ransomware attack at JNPT and Pipavav port may result in bunching of inbound and outbound cargo.

The article by Jyotika Sood and Utpal Bhaskar was published in Livemint on June 28, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Operations at one of three terminals at India’s largest container port, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) run by AP Moller-Maersk, near Mumbai, were disrupted by a global ransomware attack, the port said on Wednesday. The version that caused the disruption has been dubbed GoldenEye by security firm Bitdefender Labs.

Operations at the Danish firm’s terminal at Gujarat Pipavav Port were also affected, but by the Petya variant of the ransomware.

Ransomware typically logs users out of their own systems and asks them to pay a ransom if they want to access the encrypted data.

“The central server is in Europe which we can’t control. It is not a problem aimed at India... we have become collateral damage,” said a senior Indian government official involved in cybersecurity operations.

The ransomware hit the integrated transport and logistics firm’s global operations on Tuesday across its 75 terminals. It also impacted Chernobyl’s radiation monitoring system, law firm DLA Piper, pharma firm Merck, a number of banks, an airport, the Kiev metro, British advertising giant WPP and Russian oil firm Rosneft, according to Bitdefender Labs.

“The IT (information technology) department of JNPT became aware of the attack at around 4.30pm on Tuesday. The Windows server started conking off and the master file got encrypted and we couldn’t access any data. The operations immediately came to a standstill,” said a JNPT official requesting anonymity.

AP Moller-Maersk operates the Gateway Terminals India (GTI) at JNPT which has a capacity to handle 1.8 million standard container units. JNPT, which ships more than half the containerized cargo passing through India’s ports, serves a vast hinterland comprising all of northern and western India.

“While DP World and JNPT terminals are operational, the Gateway Terminals India operated by APM is completely shut,” said the JNPT official.

This is the second major ransomware attack since May after hackers exploited a loophole that was first identified by the US National Security Agency, to create WannaCry, that affected several businesses in more than 150 countries including India.

The ministry of corporate affairs and the Andhra Pradesh Police were affected, besides several large organizations..

“While the terminal operator is taking steps to address the issues disrupting operations, it is anticipated that there could be bunching of in-bound and out-bound container cargo,” India’s shipping ministry said in a statement.

Maersk group, through its terminal and infrastructure business, has invested $800 million in India.

“The global attack has impacted APM terminal of the JNPT port. The operations at the terminal have slowed down and are being entered manually. We are trying to handle the crisis by diverting traffic to other terminals,” JNPT chairman Anil Diggikar said, adding that JNPT’s operations have not been affected to a great extent.

He said it would take around 24 hours to clear the backlog.

Gujarat Pipavav Port told stock exchanges that the ransomware did not have “any major impact on the company at this point in time”.

Concerns have been expressed about the safety of India’s infrastructure projects with power generation and transmission projects figuring high on terrorist threat lists.

Ravi Shankar Prasad, minister of electronics and information technology, on Wednesday said advisories have been issued and the government is keeping a close watch on developments.

The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), the agency coordinating efforts on cybersecurity issues, in a 27 June advisory warned, “It has been reported that variants of Petya ransomware with work-like capabilities are spreading.”

Such attacks pose a grave threat to the economy and businesses. Cybersecurity Ventures predicts global annual cybercrime costs will grow from $3 trillion in 2015 to $6 trillion by 2021.

Experts believe India is ill-equipped to face such attacks.

“These cases of malware attacks highlight the need for proper planning of cybersecurity at all levels, especially for the government infrastructure networks,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based think tank.

“Transportation and shipping companies are ill-prepared for cyberattacks,” added Amit Jaju, executive director, fraud investigation and dispute services, EY.

The emergency playing out at the ports assumes significance, given India’s Rs8 trillion investment plan until 2035 under the Sagarmala programme, which involves the construction of new ports to harness the country’s 7,517km coastline and setting up of as many as 142 cargo terminals at major ports.

“Indian companies lose approximately Rs40,000 crore due to cybercrime every year. India is among the top 5 countries today in terms of the frequency and the number of cyber attacks,” Jaju said.

“We are not prepared at all. This is a question of cyber literacy because the latest attack has reused the same Windows vulnerability that was exploited by WannaCry ransomware last month and for which security patches were released almost three months ago by Microsoft,” added cybersecurity expert Mohit Kumar.

Anirudh Laskar, Mayank Aggarwal, Shally Seth & Komal Gupta contributed to the story.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-june-28-2017-jyotika-sood-utpal-bhaskar-golden-eye-ransomware-attack-hit-operations-at-pipavav-port-jnpt

GNI-Industry Dialogue Learning Session: Human Rights Impact Assessments and Due Diligence in the ICT sector

elonnai — 2016-04-06T15:42:41Z

Elonnai Hickok attended the meeting organized by Global Network Initiative on March 11, 2016 in Washington D.C.

The GNI welcomed its new observers from the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue by holding a learning session in conjunction with the GNI Board Meeting on March 10. This learning session aimed to increase understanding between the GNI and the ID by examining some of the common challenges that face ICT companies in the area of human rights due diligence and highlighting good practices. A second objective was to help the GNI develop a learning program and materials that will be useful for its members and draw on their expertise. Finally, this learning session informed the review of the GNI Implementation Guidelines that will take place during 2016.

The session took place according to the Chatham House Rule. Each short presentation was followed by a space for questions and answers.

Human Rights Impact Assessments in the ICT sector – Michael Samway
The Human Rights Due Diligence Process at Nokia – Laura Okkonen
Yahoo’s approach to Human Rights Impact Assessments– Nicole Karlebach and Katie Shay
Orange’s challenges and approach to doing business in Africa – Yves Nissim
Microsoft’s human rights impacts and the warrant case – Steve Crown and Bernard Shen
TeliaSonera’s approach to withdrawing from Eurasia – Patrik Hiselius
Considerations for company due diligence on the ground – Kathleen Reen and Babette Ngene, Internews

For discussion:

What are some of the common challenges facing current GNI member companies and ID member companies?
What do we consider to be good practices that are applicable to all?
What lessons can be applied to the review of the GNI Implementation Guidelines that will take place during 2016?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/gni-industry-dialogue-learning-session-human-rights-impact-assessments-and-due-diligence-in-the-ict-sector