We are anonymous, we are legion

Freedom of Expression Gagged

chinmayi — 2013-02-18T08:55:36Z

The use of law to bully people into silence, called ‘heckler’s veto’, is not unique to India, writes Chinmayi Arun in this op-ed published in Business Line on February 15, 2013.

Click to read the original published in the Business Line.

Freedom of expression in India is under threat. This year we have the Tamil Nadu government’s ban on Vishwaroopam, the Ashis Nandy FIR, the smothering of Kashmir’s first all girls rock band’s music, and the removal of semi-nude paintings of Hindu deities from an art gallery upon the police’s ‘suggestion’. Another Rushdie-banning controversy is upon us, and yet another Facebook user’s arrest has made the news.

Clearly, our right to freedom of expression is under an ongoing siege. The onslaught comes in varied forms: bullying by members of society, informal government action with the overhanging threat of the law, and direct use of the law (and of a variety of legislations within it). Each form is encouraged, exacerbated even, by our problematic interpretation of freedom of expression principles. Our law allows a group of intolerant people to silence a speaker by creating a threat to public order or by threatening the speaker directly, and our state is proving utterly ineffectual in protecting speech from intolerance.

Instruments Deployed

India’s first Kashmiri all-girls band is tragic proof of horizontal attacks on speech – their music was silenced by the grandmufti’s declaring it ‘un-Islamic’, and the attendant social pressure that tends to follow. They were not protected from this horizontal attack. The Palghar incident also had echoes of horizontal pressure, which was used to directly bully Shaheen Dhada, via friends advising her to apologise and strangers slapping her, before the instrument of the law was used to bully her further.

The instrument of the law can be used in invisible, informal ways, as Bangalore’s Chitrakala Parishath incident illustrates. Here, the pressure of police ‘suggestion’, carrying the implied threat of the force of the law, was used to ensure that semi-nude paintings of Hindu deities were removed from an exhibition. It appears that this police ‘suggestion’ was motivated by the fear that those paintings could trigger law and order problems.

Vishwaroopam was banned using the law, specifically section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the government to issue orders “in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger”. However, orders issued under section 144 would still need to observe the boundaries drawn for it in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Freedom and Public Order

Some may argue that controversial or offensive speech can legitimately be restricted since “public order” is one of the grounds for which our Constitution permits the restriction of the freedom of expression. However the original text of the Constitution did not include “public order” among its permissible grounds for restriction. This was inserted in the First Amendment of the Constitution, but was fortunately accompanied by the word ‘reasonable’ before restriction, thus ensuring that the freedom of expression can only be reasonably restricted under the exceptional circumstances listed in the Constitution.

This insertion of ‘public order’ came after the Supreme Court’s invalidation of government pre-censorship of speech on public order grounds in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950), declaring that the Constitution required that “nothing less than endangering the foundations of the State or threatening its overthrow could justify curtailment of the rights to freedom of speech and expression”. Therefore, Parliament amended the Constitution to expand the grounds on which the state could restrict speech, and included ‘public order’ among the expanded grounds. The trouble with this is that the intolerant are now able to create a public order problem to silence speakers.

The Supreme Court of India, in Babulal Parate vs State Of Maharashtra (1961) found that public order must be “maintained in advance in order to ensure it”, and ruled that restriction of Article 19 freedoms of expression and assembly in the interests of public order is permissible. However, all such restrictions must continue to satisfy the reasonability test laid down in the Constitution, providing our judiciary with the opportunity to ensure that intolerance does not continue to oppress speech.

The Heckler's Veto

The use of law to bully people into silence is not unique to India. Harry Kalven termed this ‘the hecklers’ veto’: if police action silences speakers for fear that the offended listeners might create a law and order problem, this effectively allows the listeners to veto what the speaker can say. There was a time when the heckler’s veto held sway in the United States and the United Kingdom. However, both countries’ legal principles have evolved to stop pandering to the intolerant, and it is time that India does the same.

Justice Hugo Black of the US Supreme Court, in his Feiner v. New York (1951) dissent, argued that the police must make all reasonable efforts to protect the speaker’s constitutional right to speak before interfering with this right. This dissenting opinion was later hailed as visionary. The US Supreme Court subsequently gradually recognised the evils of the heckler’s veto, which privileges and encourages intolerance. The United Kingdom also progressively narrowed its reading of the Public Order Act to ensure that speech is not restricted unless immediate violence is feared, and is now decriminalising insults which are not directed at a clearly identifiable victim.

The Indian Supreme Court’s judgment in the Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) echoes Justice Black’s denouncement of the heckler’s veto. It declares, “freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of violence. That would tantamount to …surrender to blackmail and intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the State. The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem”. However other judgments have shied away from confronting the fact that speech-related public order problems created by intolerance, not by speech.

Our legal system needs to take a firm, consistent stand against the heckler’s veto. We need to stop mirroring the evils of outdated law in fresh legislations like the Information Technology Act, and work instead to remove law and practices that institutionalise intolerance.

(The author teaches at National Law University, Delhi and is Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindubusinessline-feb-15-2013-chinmayi-arun-freedom-of-expression-gagged

Freedom from Monitoring: India Inc Should Push For Privacy Laws

sunil — 2013-08-21T07:04:48Z

More surveillance than absolutely necessary actually undermines the security objective.

This article by Sunil Abraham was published in Forbes India Magazine on August 21, 2013.

I think I understand why the average Indian IT entrepreneur or enterprise does not have a position on blanket surveillance. This is because the average Indian IT enterprise’s business model depends on labour arbitrage, not intellectual property. And therefore they have no worries about proprietary code or unfiled patent applications being stolen by competitors via rogue government officials within projects such as NATGRID, UID and, now, the CMS.

A sub-section of industry, especially the technology industry, will always root for blanket surveillance measures. The surveillance industry has many different players, ranging from those selling biometric and CCTV hardware to those providing solutions for big data analytics and legal interception systems. There are also more controversial players who provide spyware, especially those in the market for zero-day exploits. The cheerleaders for the surveillance industry are techno-determinists who believe you can solve any problem by throwing enough of the latest and most expensive technology at it.

What is surprising, though, is that other indigenous or foreign enterprises that depend on secrecy and confidentiality—in sectors such a banking, finance, health, law, ecommerce, media, consulting and communications—also don’t seem to have a public position on the growing surveillance ambitions of ‘democracies’ such as India and the United States of America. (Perhaps the only exceptions are a few multinational internet and software companies that have made some show of resistance and disagreement with the blanket surveillance paradigm.)

Is it because these businesses are patriotic? Do they believe that secrecy, confidentiality and, most importantly, privacy, must be sacrificed for national security? If that were true then it would not be a particularly wise thing to do, as privacy is the precondition for security. Ann Cavoukian, privacy commissioner of Ontario, calls it a false dichotomy. Bruce Schneier, security technologist and writer, calls it a false zero sum game; he goes on to say, “There is no security without privacy. And liberty requires both security and privacy.”

The reason why the secret recipe of Coca Cola is still secret after over 120 years is the same as the reason why a captured soldier cannot spill the beans on the overall war strategy. Corporations, like militaries, have layers and layers of privacy and secrecy. The ‘need to know’ principle resists all centralising tendencies, such as blanket surveillance. It’s important to note that targeted surveillance to identify a traitor or spy within the military, or someone engaged in espionage within a corporation, is pretty much an essential. However, any more surveillance than absolutely necessary actually undermines the security objective. To summarise, privacy is a pre-condition to the security of the individual, the enterprise, the military and the nation state.

Most people complaining online about projects like the Central Monitoring System seem to think that India has no privacy laws. This is completely untrue: We have around 50 different laws, rules and regulations that aim to uphold privacy and confidentiality in various domains. Unfortunately, most of those policies are very dated and do not sufficiently take into account the challenges of contemporary information societies. These policy documents need to be updated and harmonised through the enactment of a new horizontal privacy law. A small minority will say that Section 43(A) of the Information Technology Act is the India privacy law. That is not completely untrue, but is a gross exaggeration. Section 43(A) is really only a data security provision and, at that, it does not even comprehensively address data protection, which is only a sub-set of the overall privacy regulation required in a nation.

What would an ideal privacy law for India look like? For one, it would protect the rights of all persons, regardless of whether they are citizens or residents. Two, it would define privacy principles. Three, it would establish the office of an independent and autonomous privacy commissioner, who would be sufficiently empowered to investigate and take action against both government and private entities. Four, it would define civil and criminal offences, remedies and penalties. And five, it would have an overriding effect on previous legislation that does not comply with all the privacy principles.

The Justice AP Shah Committee report, released in October 2012, defined the Indian privacy principles as notice, choice and consent, collection limitation, purpose limitation, access and correction, disclosure of information, security, openness and accountability. The report also lists the exemptions and limitations, so that privacy protections do not have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression and transparency enabled by the Right to Information Act.

The Department of Personnel and Training has been working on a privacy bill for the last three years. Two versions of the bill had leaked before the Justice AP Shah Committee was formed. The next version of the bill, hopefully implementing the recommendations of the Justice AP Shah Committee report, is expected in the near future. In a multi-stakeholder-based parallel process, the Centre for Internet and Society (where I work), along with FICCI and DSCI, is holding seven round tables on a civil society draft of the privacy bill and the industry-led efforts on co-regulation.

The Indian ITES, KPO and BPO sector should be particularly pleased with this development. As should any other Indian enterprise that holds personal information of EU and US nationals. This is because the EU, after the enactment of the law, will consider data protection in India adequate as per the requirements of its Data Protection Directive. This would mean that these enterprises would not have to spend twice the time and resources ensuring compliance with two different regulatory regimes.

Is the lack of enthusiasm for privacy in the Indian private sector symptomatic of Indian societal values? Can we blame it on cultural relativism, best exemplified by what Simon Davies calls “the Indian Train Syndrome, in which total strangers will disclose their lives on a train to complete strangers”? But surely, when email addresses are exchanged at the end of that conversation, they are not accompanied by passwords. Privacy is perhaps differently configured in Indian societies but it is definitely not dead. Fortunately for us, calls to protect this important human right are growing every day.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/forbesindia-article-august-21-2013-sunil-abraham-freedom-from-monitoring

Freedom debate takes a new course

praskrishna — 2012-07-22T16:34:54Z

The focus is now on the dubious roles played by private entities on what goes online, says Deepa Kurup in this article published in the Hindu on July 1, 2012.

Deepa Kurup's article was published in the Hindu on July 1, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Debates on censoring the Internet, till recently, largely pitted the ‘people’, that is Net users, against the government which was perceived as seeking to stifle free speech on the Web, a medium that is believed to be vastly powerful and democratic. However, in recent weeks, the focus of the discourse has shifted from shrill anti-government stances to the dubious role that private entities — that often projected themselves as protectors of free speech in the earlier debates — play in controlling this important resource.

That there are various private interests — ranging from Internet service providers, Web companies to the entertainment industry — at stake here is a no-brainer. However, this came to the fore only last month, when two major Internet service providers, Airtel and Reliance, in a pre-emptive move to comply with a Madras High Court order seeking to curb piracy of regional films, blocked access to at least a dozen sites. The blocked sites not only included file-sharing sites but also legitimate Web businesses such as video-sharing sites Vimeo and Daily Motion, that largely host high-quality original videos, and bookmarking sites such as Pastebin.

What was noteworthy is that the High Court did not order the blocking of these websites, and merely ruled that piracy of regional films such as Dammu and 3 be curbed. The order was in response to a petition by makers of the Tamil film 3, yes, the same movie whose claim to fame was the viral Internet hit ‘Kolaveri di’, made popular because thousands of netizens freely shared and viewed the video.

Not limited to regional films, there has been a steady increase in the number of Indian movie production houses, such as Reliance Entertainment Ltd. and Viacom18 Motion Pictures, seeking ex-parte injunctions (popularly known as John Doe or Ashok Kumar orders against unknown persons) to curb piracy of their copyrighted material. Most recently, Viacom18 went to court seeking pre-emptive orders for last Friday’s release, Gangs of Wasseypur, a move that in the context of increased awareness on such laws and their chilling effect on the Internet, drew much flak from netizens. Even in the past, ISPs and Web companies, eager to sidestep possible legal landmines, are known to have blocked entire sites in response to government requests.

Partial Relief?

Last week, the Madras High Court, ruling on an appeal filed by a consortium of ISPs, decreed that ISPs need only block a few specific URLs that carry pirated content, and not entire websites. Following this clarification from the court, ISPs unblocked the sites.

Though many rejoiced over the order, seeing it as an indicator of the success of campaigns — some overt and others more covert such as the hacktivist group Anonymous — others have been more guarded in their response to this.

Pranesh Prakash, lawyer and copyright expert at the Centre for Internet and Society, feels that the victory is only partial given that the court has endorsed partial blocking of Web links. He says: “Under Indian copyright law, ISPs cannot be liable for copyright infringement committed by their users. So while it is good that the court clarified that its order was limited in its scope, it is possible to read even this as going far beyond that which is allowed under the law.” Mr. Prakash points out that the copyright law can be used for censorship, for instance, in the case of the Satish Seth video that Reliance Entertainment has gotten removed from YouTube by citing copyright infringement.”

Hacktivist Exposes

The Satish Seth video was one among many links part of a list published by hacktivist group Anonymous India, on the blog Kafila. The group claimed to have hacked into the servers of Reliance Communication and found a list of 434 Web addresses that were blocked.

Not surprisingly, at least 45 of them were blocked on Reliance request and had little to do with government or court orders. While Reliance has denied the hack and said that list is not authentic, to the media, the list brought to the fore the uneasy role that private companies could play in who controls content on the Web.

Though it is unknown what the Satish Seth links originally contained, a simple search on the web reveals that Mr. Seth is a senior employee in the Reliance Group. These links were later unblocked.

Though some of the distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks orchestrated by the group that calls itself Anonymous India targeted government websites, a major target have been these private companies.

In that sense, the contribution of Anonymous India has been interesting in changing the narrative of the discourse to include how private companies that have off late taken to sermonising on the merits of unrestricted freedom on the Web, could easily manipulate the system to further their own interests.

This uneasy equation was also exposed in a ‘sting operation’ conducted by the CIS in 2010, in which Web companies eagerly complied to unsubstantiated or dummy take-down notices sent out.

While the first round of activism focussed on the government’s proposal to clampdown on what it called ‘hate speech’ on the Web by fixing intermediary liabilities (through guidelines it notified in April 2011), this round has dealt with the complex issue of copyrights. A difficult issue worldwide, like in the U.S. for instance where the controversial Bill SOPA sought to block sites that host copyrighted material, here too huge entertainment lobbies, backed by big business, are likely to play a bigger and more forceful role in this debate.

This is apparent even in the Google Transparency Report, released earlier this month, which shows the number of copyright removal notices received for Search (not including its other services such as YouTube and Blogger) in the past year is a climbing statistic.

In June alone, Google Search received 2,221,212 takedown requests from copyright owners and reporting organisations. Not surprisingly, though the list of requestors is topped by software major Microsoft, among other top contenders are all the major production houses.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/freedom-debate-takes-a-new-course

Free Speech Policy in India: Community, Custom, Censorship, and the Future of Internet Regulation

bhairav — 2015-08-23T10:12:16Z

This note summarises my panel contribution to the conference on Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age at New Delhi on 21 April 2015, which was organised by the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in collaboration with the Internet Policy Observatory of the Center for Global Communication Studies (CGCS) at the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania

Download the Note here (PDF, 103 Kb)

Preliminary

There has been legitimate happiness among many in India at the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Shreya Singhal case to strike down section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("IT Act") for unconstitutionally fettering the right to free speech on the Internet. The judgment is indeed welcome, and reaffirms the Supreme Court’s proud record of defending the freedom of speech, although it declined to interfere with the government’s stringent powers of website blocking. As the dust settles there are reports the government is re-grouping to introduce fresh law, allegedly stronger to secure easier convictions, to compensate the government’s defeat.

Case Law and Government Policy

India’s constitutional courts have a varied history of negotiating the freedom of speech that justifiably demands study. But, in my opinion, inadequate attention is directed to the government’s history of free speech policy. It is possible to discern from the government’s actions over the last two centuries a relatively consistent narrative of governance that seeks to bend the individual’s right to speech to its will. The defining characteristics of this narrative – the government’s free speech policy – emerge from a study of executive and legislative decisions chiefly in relation to the press, that continue to shape policy regarding the freedom of expression on the Internet.

India’s corpus of free speech case law is not uniform nor can it be since, for instance, the foundational issues that attend hate speech are quite different from those that inform contempt of court. So too, Indian free speech policy has been varied, captive to political compulsions and disparate views regarding the interests of the community, governance and nation-building. There has been consistent tension between the individual and the community, as well as the role of the government in enforcing the expectations of the community when thwarted by law.

Dichotomy between Modern and Native Law

To understand free speech policy, it is useful to go back to the early colonial period in India, when Governor-General Warren Hastings established a system of courts in Bengal’s hinterland to begin the long process of displacing traditional law to create a modern legal system. By most accounts, pre-modern Indian law was not prescriptive, Austinian, and uniform. Instead, there were several legal systems and a variety of competing and complementary legal sources that supported different interpretations of law within most legal systems. J. Duncan M. Derrett notes that the colonial expropriation of Indian law was marked by a significant tension caused by the repeatedly-stated objective of preserving some fields of native law to create a dichotomous legal structure. These efforts were assisted by orientalist jurists such as Henry Thomas Colebrook whose interpretation of the dharmasastras heralded a new stage in the evolution of Hindu law.

In this background, it is not surprising that Elijah Impey, a close associate of Hastings, simultaneously served as the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at Fort William while overseeing the Sadr Diwani Adalat, a civil court applying Anglo-Hindu law for Hindus, and the Sadr Faujdari Adalat, a criminal court applying Anglo-Islamic law to all natives. By the mid-nineteenth century, this dual system came under strain in the face of increasing colonial pressure to rationalise the legal system to ensure more effective governance, and native protest at the perceived insensitivity of the colonial government to local customs.

Criminal Law and Free Speech in the Colony

In 1837, Thomas Macaulay wrote the first draft of a new comprehensive criminal law to replace indigenous law and custom with statutory modern law. When it was enacted as the Indian Penal Code in 1860 ("IPC"), it represented the apogee of the new colonial effort to recreate the common law in India. The IPC’s enactment coincided with the growth and spread of both the press and popular protest in India. The statute contained the entire gamut of public-order and community-interest crimes to punish unlawful assembly, rioting, affray, wanton provocation, public nuisance, obscenity, defiling a place of worship, disturbing a religious assembly, wounding religious feelings, and so on. It also criminalised private offences such as causing insult, annoyance, and intimidation. These crimes continue to be invoked in India today to silence individual opinion and free speech, including on the Internet. Section 66A of the IT Act utilised a very similar vocabulary of censorship.

Interestingly, Macaulay’s IPC did not feature the common law offences of sedition and blasphemy or the peculiar Indian crime of promoting inter-community enmity; these were added later. Sedition was criminalised by section 124A at the insistence of Barnes Peacock and applied successfully against Indian nationalist leaders including Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1897 and 1909, and Mohandas Gandhi in 1922. In 1898, the IPC was amended again to incorporate section 153A to criminalise the promotion of enmity between different communities by words or deeds. And, in 1927, a more controversial amendment inserted section 295A into the IPC to criminalise blasphemy. All three offences have been recently used in India against writers, bloggers, professors, and ordinary citizens.

Loss of the Right to Offend

The two amendments of 1898 and 1927, which together proscribed the promotion of inter-community enmity and blasphemy, represent the dismantling of the right to offend in India. But, oddly, they were defended by the colonial government in the interests of native sensibilities. The proceedings of the Imperial Legislative Council reveal several members, including Indians, were enthusiastic about the amendments. For some, the amendments were a necessary corrective action to protect community honour from subversive speech. The 1920s were a period of foment in India as the freedom movement intensified and communal tension mounted. In this environment, it was easy to fuse the colonial interest in strong administration with a nationalist narrative that demanded the retrieval of Indian custom to protect native sensibilities from being offended by individual free speech, a right derived from modern European law. No authoritative jurist could be summoned to prove or refute the claim that native custom privileged community honour.

Sadly the specific incident which galvanised the amendment of 1927, which established the crime of blasphemy in India, would not appear unfamiliar to a contemporary observer. Mahashay Rajpal, an Arya Samaj activist, published an offensive pamphlet of the Prophet Muhammad titled Rangeela Rasool, for which he was arrested and tried but acquitted in the absence of specific blasphemy provisions. With his speech being found legal, Rajpal was released and given police protection but Ilam Din, a Muslim youth, stabbed him to death. Instead of supporting its criminal law and strengthening its police forces to implement the decisions of its courts, the colonial administration surrendered to the threat of public disorder and enacted section 295A of the IPC.

Protest and Community Honour

The amendment of 1927 marks an important point of rupture in the history of Indian free speech. It demonstrated the government’s policy intention of overturning the courts to restrict the individual’s right to speech when faced with public protest. In this way, the combination of public disorder and the newly-created crimes of promoting inter-community enmity and blasphemy opened the way for the criminal justice system to be used as a tool by natives to settle their socio-cultural disputes. Both these crimes address group offence; they do not redress individual grievances. In so far as they are designed to endorse group honour, these crimes signify the community’s attempt to suborn modern law and individual rights.

Almost a century later, the Rangeela Rasool affair has become the depressing template for illegal censorship in India: fringe groups take offence at permissible speech, crowds are marshalled to articulate an imagined grievance, and the government capitulates to the threat of violence. This formula has become so entrenched that governance has grown reflexively suppressive, quick to silence speech even before the perpetrators of lumpen violence can receive affront. This is especially true of online speech, where censorship is driven by the additional anxiety brought by the difficulty of Internet regulation. In this race to be offended the government plays the parochial referee, acting to protect indigenous sensibilities from subversive but legal speech.

The Censorious Post-colony

Independence marked an opportunity to remake Indian governance in a freer image. The Constituent Assembly had resolved not to curb the freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution on account of public order. In two cases from opposite ends of the country where right-wing and left-wing speech were punished by local governments on public order grounds, the Supreme Court acted on the Constituent Assembly’s vision and struck down the laws in question. Free speech, it appeared, would survive administrative concerns, thanks to the guarantee of a new constitution and an independent judiciary. Instead Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his cabinet responded with the First Amendment in 1951, merely a year after the Constitution was enacted, to create three new grounds of censorship, including public order. In 1963, a year before he demitted office, the Sixteenth Amendment added an additional restriction.

Nehru did not stop at amending the Constitution, he followed shortly after with a concerted attempt to stage-manage the press by de-legitimising certain kinds of permissible speech.

Under Justice G. S. Rajadhyaksha, the government constituted the First Press Commission which attacked yellow journalism, seemingly a sincere concern, but included permissible albeit condemnable speech that was directed at communities, indecent or vulgar, and biased. Significantly, the Commission expected the press to only publish speech that conformed to the developmental and social objectives of the government. In other words, Nehru wanted the press to support his vision of India and used the imperative of nation-building to achieve this goal. So, the individual right to offend communities was taken away by law and policy, and speech that dissented from the government’s socio-economic and political agenda was discouraged by policy. Coupled with the new constitutional ground of censorship on account of public order, the career of free speech in independent India began uncertainly.

How to regulate permissible speech?

Despite the many restrictions imposed by law on free speech, Indian free speech policy has long been engaged with the question of how to regulate the permissible speech that survives constitutional scrutiny. This was significantly easier in colonial India. In 1799, Governor-General Richard Wellesley, the brother of the famous Duke of Wellington who defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, instituted a pre-censorship system to create what Rajeev Dhavan calls a “press by permission” marked by licensed publications, prior restraint, subsequent censorship, and harsh penalties. A new colonial regime for strict control over the publication of free speech was enacted in the form of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the preamble of which recognises that “the literature of a country is…an index of…the condition of [its] people”. The 1867 Act was diluted after independence but still remains alive in the form of the Registrar of Newspapers.

After surviving Indira Gandhi’s demand for a committed press and the depredations of her regime during the Emergency, India’s press underwent the examination of the Second Press Commission. This was appointed in 1978 under the chairmanship of Justice P. K. Goswami, a year after the Janata government released the famous White Paper on Misuse of Mass Media. When Gandhi returned to power, Justice Goswami resigned and the Commission was reconstituted under Justice K. K. Mathew. In 1982, the Commission’s report endorsed the earlier First Press Commission’s call for conformist speech, but went further by proposing the appointment of a press regulator invested with inspection powers; criminalising attacks on the government; re-interpreting defamation law to encompass democratic criticism of public servants; retaining stringent official secrecy law; and more. It was quickly acted upon by Rajiv Gandhi through his infamous Defamation Bill.

The contours of future Internet regulation

The juggernaut of Indian free speech policy has received temporary setbacks, mostly inflicted by the Supreme Court. Past experience shows us that governments with strong majorities – whether Jawaharlal Nehru’s following independence or Indira Gandhi’s in the 1970s – act on their administrative impulses to impede free speech by government policy. The Internet is a recent and uncontrollable medium of speech that attracts disproportionately heavy regulatory attention. Section 66A of the IT Act may be dead but several other provisions remain to harass and punish online free speech. Far from relaxing its grip on divergent opinions, the government appears poised for more incisive invasions of personal freedoms.

I do not believe the contours of future speech regulation on the Internet need to be guessed at, they can be derived from the last two centuries of India’s free speech policy. When section 66A is replaced – and it will be, whether overtly by fresh statutory provisions or stealthily by policy and non-justiciable committees and commissions – it will be through a regime that obeys the mandate of the First Press Commission to discourage dissenting and divergent speech while adopting the regulatory structures of the Second Press Commission to permit a limited inspector raj and forbid attacks on personalities. The interests of the community, howsoever improperly articulated, will seek precedence over individual freedoms and the accompanying threat of violence will give new meaning to Bhimrao Ambedkar’s warning of the “grammar of anarchy”.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/policy-in-india-community-custom-censorship-and-future-of-internet-regulation

Free Speech Online in India under Attack?

praskrishna — 2012-03-02T03:03:24Z

When the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal suggested pre-censorship for a range of popular online platforms and social networking sites, the suggestion was met by a barrage of criticism, which soon forced him to back down. Yet Sibal’s suggestion is not the only threat to free speech on the Internet in India today. Legislation such as the Intermediary Due Diligence Rules and Cyber Café Rules (also jointly known as the IT Rules) issued in April 2011 is equally dangerous for free speech online.

Achal Prabhala, Anja Kovacs and Lawrence Liang will join Sunil Abraham to discuss in more detail some of the direct threats to freedom of expression online in India today including the larger legal and social context of freedom of expression and censorship, control and resistance in which they have to be understood and the steps that can be taken to ensure that substantive protections for freedom of expression online will be put into place.

The Speakers

Achal Prabhala

Achal is based in Bangalore, Karnataka. He is a researcher, activist and writer in the areas of access to knowledge and access to medicine besides being a member of the Advisory board of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Anja Kovacs

Anja works with the Internet Democracy Project, which engages in research and advocacy on the promises and challenges that the Internet poses for democracy and social justice in the developing world.

Lawrence Liang

Lawrence is a researcher and lawyer based in Bangalore, who is known for his legal campaigns on issues of public concern. He is a co-founder of the Alternative Law Forum and works on the intersection of law, technology and culture. He has worked closely with filmmakers and artists in a number of anti-censorship campaigns.

The Moderator

Sunil Abraham

Sunil is the Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based non-profit organization. He is also a social entrepreneur and Free Software advocate. He founded Mahiti in 1998 which aims to reduce the cost and complexity of Information and Communication Technology for the Voluntary Sector by using Free Software.

This event is jointly organised by the Internet Democracy Project and the Centre for Internet and Society. Join us at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, on Wednesday 21 December, at 5.30 pm.

VIDEOS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/free-speech-online-in-india-under-attack

Free Net advocates flay Trai's public Wi-Fi paper

praskrishna — 2016-11-20T03:21:41Z

Stakeholders vouching for a cheap and open Internet have flagged concerns over privacy and regulatory hurdles.

The article by Anita Babu was published in the Business Standard on November 20, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

With the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India releasing its consultation paper on public Wi-Fi this week, stakeholders vouching for a cheap and open Internet have flagged concerns over privacy and regulatory hurdles.

The Internet Freedom Foundation has pointed out that the proposed regulations might lead to invasion of privacy and interfere with the freedom of hotspot providers to operate freely.

“While we welcome Trai’s vision that increasing the number of public Wi-Fi hotspots could be the way to bringing the majority of Indians online, the proposals turn out to be regressive and poorly thought out,” said Aravind Ravi Sulekha, co-founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation.

The regulator in its consultation paper issued earlier this week proposed hotspot providers would have to register with the government and users could access hotspots only after paying using a service tied to their Aadhaar number. It wants to utilise Aadhaar, electronic-Know Your Customer (e-KYC) and the Unified Payment Interface (UPI) to build a standard authentication mechanism for access to public Wi-Fi in India. While the aim of Trai is to increase the number of Wi-Fi hotspots in India, proponents of free Internet fear these proposed rules might have a contrary effect.

Hotspot providers will have to incur costs on account of hardware installations for one-time password verification in addition to the costs of sending out the passwords. This might discourage entrepreneurs.

“This system of verification makes it harder for entrepreneurs to set up hotspots and for people to access them. It is impossible for broadband to proliferate in any significant way if Trai insists on applying ineffective and cumbersome regulations on those who wish to set up their own hotspots,” Internet Freedom Foundation said in its comments to Trai’s consultation paper.

The proposals have excluded individuals who do not have an Aadhaar account from accessing public Wi-Fi. “This not only brings concerns of costs and exclusion but also privacy, given the constitutionality of the Aadhaar project, and its government-mandated use, is pending adjudication in the Supreme Court,” the foundation pointed out.

The proposals also come at the cost of anonymity. The foundation, cofounded by the crusaders of last year’s SaveTheInternet campaign, trashed the argument that imposing eKYC norms would help in countering terrorism and other crimes. “This prohibition on anonymous communication is a violation of Indians’ freedom of expression… making a call at a PCO, sending a telegram and posting a letter have always been possible without showing ID — even though criminals and terrorists occasionally abused these services… KYC measures are ineffective in preventing crime and terrorism, as tools like VPNs, TOR, and proxies can easily mask the identity of an Internet user,” it stated.

“The solution proposed by Trai is a classic example of centralism and over-regulation. It turns out that Trai is unclear about the problem to be solved,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society. He added that the new proposals had also failed to address the limitations on foreigners or tourists in India.

Current regulations prevent foreigners without a local mobile number from accessing public Wi-Fi connections. While Trai had identified the problem, it failed to come up with a plausible solution.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-november-20-2016-anita-babu-free-net-advocates-flay-trais-public-wifi-paper

Free expression

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T08:48:44Z

Free speech and spirited public debate will be the casualties of new rules issued by India restricting Internet content. This news was published in Watertown Daily Times on May 2, 2011.

The regulations from the country's Department of Information Technology go beyond government censorship to individual censorship of material that might be offensive. According to the New York Times, even private citizens can demand that a service provider remove content that is "disparaging," "harassing" or "blasphemous."

The terms, though, are not defined. They are vague and subject to personal interpretation. Enforcement by the government or individuals will be arbitrary.

A rule against content that "threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order" could be used by the government to block Internet debate over foreign policy or disagreement with the government's diplomatic relations with another country.

They are also subject to abuse by those who want to silence those they dislike or oppose.

India has a history of banning books and other materials considered objectionable, but the new rules go much further than a specific ban. They also require "intermediaries" such as Facebook and YouTube to remove offensive content within 36 hours of a complaint from anyone. No provisions are made for challenging the complaint.

"These rules favor those who want to clamp down on freedom of expression," said Sunil Abraham, executive director for the Center for Internet and Society.

Such rules are not surprising in countries with repressive regimes, but they are intolerable in a nation like India that considers itself democratic.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/free-expression

Free Basics: Negating net parity

sunil — 2016-01-03T05:58:00Z

Researchers funded by Facebook were apparently told by 92 per cent of Indians they surveyed from large cities, with Internet connection and college degree, that the Internet “is a human right and that Free Basics can help bring Internet to all of India.” What a strange way to frame the question given that the Internet is not a human right in most jurisdictions.

The article was published in the Deccan Herald on January 3, 2016.

Free Basics is gratis service offered by Facebook in partnership with telcos in 37 countries. It is a mobile app that features less than a 100 of the 1 billion odd websites that are currently available on the WWW which in turn is only a sub-set of the Internet. Free Basics violates Net Neutrality because it introduces an unnecessary gatekeeper who gets to decide on “who is in” and “who is out”. Services like Free Basics could permanently alienate the poor from the full choice of the Internet because it creates price discrimination hurdles that discourage those who want to leave the walled garden.

Inika Charles and Arhant Madhyala, two interns at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), surveyed 1/100th of the Facebook sample, that is, 30 persons with the very same question at a café near our office in Bengaluru. Seventy per cent agreed with Facebook that the Internet was a human right but only 26 per cent thought Free Basics would achieve universal connectivity. My real point here is that numbers don’t matter. At least not in the typical way they do. Facebook dismissed Amba Kak’s independent, unfunded, qualitative research in Delhi, in their second public rebuttal, saying the sample size was only 20.

That was truly ironical. The whole point of her research was the importance of small numbers. Kak says, “For some, it was the idea of an ‘emergency’ which made all-access plans valuable.” A respondent stated: “But maybe once or twice a month, I need some information which only Google can give me... like the other day my sister needed to know results to her entrance exams.” If you consider that too mundane, take a moment to picture yourself stranded in the recent Chennai flood. The statistical rarity of a Black Swan does not reduce its importance. A more neutral network is usually a more resilient network. When we do have our next national disaster, do we want to be one of the few countries on the planet who, thanks to our flawed regulation, have ended up with a splinternet?

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) chairman R S Sharma rightly expressed some scepticism around numbers when he said “the consultation paper is not an opinion poll.” He elaborated: “The issue here is some sites are being offered to one person free of cost while another is paying for it. Is this a good thing and can operators have such powers?” Had he instead asked “Is this the best option?” my answer would be “no”. Given the way he has formulated the question, our answer is a lawyerly “it depends”. The CIS believes that differential pricing should be prohibited. However, it can be allowed under certain exceptional standards when it is done in a manner that can be justified by the regulator against four axes of sometimes orthogonal policy objectives. They are increased access, enhanced competition, increased user choice and contribution to openness. For example, a permanent ban on Free Basics makes sense in the Netherlands but regulation may be sufficient for India.

Gatekeeping powers

To the second and more important part to Trai chairman’s second question on gatekeeping powers of operators, our answer is a simple “no”. But then, do we have any evidence that gatekeeping powers have been abused to the detriment of consumer and public interest? No. What do we do when we cannot, like Russell’s chicken, use induction to explain our future? Prof Simon Wren-Lew says, “If Bertrand Russell’s chicken had been an economist ...(it would have)... asked a crucial additional question: Why is the farmer doing this? What is in it for him?” There were five serious problems with Free Basics that Facebook has at least partially fixed, thanks mostly to criticism from consumers in India and Brazil. One, exclusivity with access provider; two, exclusivity with a set of web services; three, lack of transparency regarding retention of personal information; four, misrepresentation through the name of the service, Internet.org and five, lack of support for encrypted traffic. But how do we know these problems will stay fixed? Emerging markets guru Jan Chipchase tweeted asking “Do you trust Facebook? Today? Tomorrow? When its share price is under pressure and it wants to wring more $$$ from the platform?”

Zero. Facebook pays telecom operators zero. The operators pay Facebook zero. The consumers pay zero. Why do we need to regulate philanthropy? Because these freebies are not purely the fruit of private capital. They are only possible thanks to an artificial state-supported oligopoly dependent on public resources like spectrum and wires (over and under public property). Therefore, these oligopolies much serve the public interest and also ensure that users are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion.

Also provision of a free service should not allow powerful corporations to escape regulation–in jurisdictions like Brazil it is clear that Facebook has to comply with consumer protection law even if users are not paying for the service. Given that big data is the new oil, Facebook could pay the access provider in advertisements or manipulation of public discourse or by tweaking software defaults such as autoplay for videos which could increase bills of paying consumers quite dramatically.

India needs a Net Neutrality regime that allows for business models and technological innovation as long as they don’t discriminate between users and competitors. The Trai should begin regulation based on principles as it has rightly done with the pre-emptive temporary ban. But there is a need to bring “numbers we can trust” to the regulatory debate. We as citizens need to establish a peer-to-peer Internet monitoring infrastructure across mobile and fixed lines in India that we can use to crowd source data.

(The writer is Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru. He says CIS receives about $200,000 a year from WMF, the organisation behind Wikipedia, a site featured in Free Basics and zero-rated by many access providers across the world)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-herald-january-3-2016-sunil-abraham-free-basics-negating-net-parity

Fragmenting Cybersecurity Norms through the Language(s) of Subalternity: India in the East and the Global Community

Admin — 2019-07-06T03:01:39Z

Arindrajit Basu's research was quoted in the article by Riccardo Vecellio Segate published in Columbia Journal of Asian Law.

The global cybersecurity discourse has never proved more fragmented than in the aftermath of the failure of the last United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security. This discourse stands trapped in long-lasting and seemingly crystallized normative stances between “the West”and “the East,” yet it also calls upon the international community to regulate a wide spectrum of phenomena, ranging from thefts ofdigitally-stored trade secrets to large-scale pervasive attacks, which may soon reach the threshold of armed attacks. If one situates the major cybersecurity players on a sliding scale between freedom and control over cyber content and infrastructure, the mainstream stance would place the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Brazil, India, China, and Russia in that order. Nonetheless,this scale is in practice more complex, in part due to the influence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a regional security forum which has witnessed major rebalancing after the membership expansion in June 2017.

This paper scrutinizes India’s contribution towards a possible fragmentation of the “Eastern” cybersecurity discourse based onhard laws and state assertiveness, and the consequent disruption of the constructivist East-West binary dialectic about cyberwarfare,cyberterrorism, cyber espionage, and online data protection. By simultaneously negotiating its sub-alterity and rejecting itssubalternity, India holds the potential to reshape an otherwise almostcoherent “cyber East.”

Click to read the complete article.

Citations:

(a)[Footnote 37}ARINDRAJIT BASU,THE CTR. FOR INTERNET &SOC’Y, THE POTENTIAL FOR THE NORMATIVE REGULATION OF CYBERSPACE:IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA 50(2018).

(b) [Footnote 146} Arindrajit Basu, India Needs a Credible Deterrence Strategy for Cyberspace, THE WIRE (Sept. 3, 2017), https://thewire.in/tech/india-needs-credible-deterrence-strategy-cyberspace (emphasis added)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/columbia-journal-of-asia-law-june-6-2019-ricardo-vecellio-segate

Fragmentation in a Democracy : The Role of Social Movements and the Media

praskrishna — 2013-10-29T07:45:31Z

The Observer Research Foundation, Delhi, together with the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, Berlin, will be convening a Round-table on Fragmentation in a Democracy : The Role of Social Movements and the Media on October 16, 2013 at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi. Sunil Abraham is a speaker in the session on Impact of Media, Social Media & Technology on Democracy / Governance.

The round-table will examine the changing role of civil society as a political actor and also how this is being impacted by the Media and Social Media.

This round-table is being designed as a brainstorming session and therefore there will not be any formal written papers. Ideally, we will aim to have one or two prepared comments in each session to lay out the issues and a general discussion thereafter.

Agenda

10.00 10.05	Opening Remarks by Roundtable Chairperson:
10.05 11.45	Session 1: The Changing Role of Civil Society in a Democracy/Democratic Governance Trilochan Sastry, Founder and trustee, Association for Democratic Reform, Bangalore Chakshu Rai,/PRS Legislative Research Institute for Policy Research Studies, Delhi Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Independent Journalist, Delhi Anand Kumar, Professor, JNU, Delhi
11.45 12.00	Tea/Coffee Break
	Session 2: The Impact of Media, Social Media & Technology on Democracy / Governance Sunil Abraham, CIS Bangalore Aditya Kalra, Thomson Rueters, Delhi R. Swaminathan, ORF, Mumbai Niranjan Sahoo, ORF, Delhi
13.45	Lunch

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/fragmentation-in-a-democracy

Fourth Meeting of the two Sub-Groups on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice AP Shah

praskrishna — 2012-08-07T10:12:41Z

The next meeting of the two Sub-Groups (4th meeting) on privacy issues under the Chairmanship of Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court is scheduled to be held on July 9, 2012 at 11.00 a.m. in Committee Room No. 228, Yojana Bhawan, Planning Commission, New Delhi.

Members of both the Sub-Groups are requested to send their final drafts as decided in the meeting held on June 27, 2012, by July 4, 2012 so that these could be circulated for obtaining feedback and for discussions/deliberations on July 9, 2012.

The above information was communicated by Shri S. Bose, Under Secretary, (CIT & I) to the following individuals:

Justice A.P. Shah, Chairman
Dr. Kamlesh Bajaj
Ms. Usha Ramanathan
Shri Sunil Abraham/Shri Pranesh Prakash
Prashant Reddy
Prof. Arghya Sengupta (requested to join the meeting on skype. Exact time for coming online will be communicated separately)
Shri Som Mittal
Shri Gulshan Rai
Ms. Mala Dutt

A copy of this information was sent to the following individuals:

Dr. C.M. Kumar, Sr, Adviser (CIT&I)

Shri R.K. Gupta, Adviser (CIT&I)

Shri Ramesh Kumar, Director (CIT&I)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/fourth-meeting-of-sub-groups-on-privacy-issues

Fourth Discussion Meeting of the Expert Committee to Discuss the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill

praskrishna — 2014-12-08T16:07:24Z

The fourth expert committee meeting was held on November 10, 2014 at the Department of Biotechnology to discuss the potential privacy concerns of the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill. Sunil Abraham however was unable to participate because of technical problems.

Agenda

Welcome and opening remarks by the Secretary, DBT
Remarks by the Chairman - Dr. T.S. Rao, Senior Adviser, DBT
A brief overview on deliberations and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court - Dr. Alka Sharma, Director, DBT
Discussion and finalization of the Bill by the members
Recommendations of the Expert Committee
Any other item with the permission of the Chairman.

Resources

Click here (Zip file, 2698 Kb) to download the following resources from earlier meetings:

Record note of discussions of the Expert Committee Meeting held on January 31, 2013 at DBT, New Delhi, to discuss the potential privacy concerns on draft Human DNA Profiling Bill.
Annexure 1 to Record note: Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012: The Privacy Issues and Concerns
Annexure 2 to Record note: Short background note on the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill
Record note of the 2nd discussion meeting of the Expert Committee held on May 13, 2013 in DBT to discuss the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill
Minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Expert Committee held on November 25, 2013 in DBT to discuss the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill
Record note of the discussions of the Experts Sub-committee Meeting on Human DNA Profiling Bill held on September 3, 2013 at CPFD, Hyderabad
Affidavit on behalf of DBT
Human Draft DNA Profiling Bill 2012 (Working Draft Version, April 29, 2012)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/fourth-discussion-meeting-of-expert-committee-to-discuss-draft-human-dna-profiling-bill

FOSS & a Free, Open Internet: Synergies for Development

praskrishna — 2016-06-18T17:57:53Z

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. Civil Society is organizing a workshop on FOSS and a Free, Open Internet. The workshop will be held on November 13, 2015 from 2.00 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash will be speaking at this event.

This was published on the IGF website.

The workshop will explore links between the Free and Open nature of the Internet and the Free and Open Source Software through a series of experience sharing among the speakers as well as audiences. The speakers have been selected on the basis of their wide exposure and geographical and occupational diversity.

As ICTs permeate lives of people around the world, code is fast emerging as an instrument that can change lives. In many parts of the world, the 4Rs of primary education are Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic and pRogramming, indicative of the role that ICTs will play in the future.

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is, inter alia, a mechanism whereby code, and consequently the ability to code, is being democratized. In contrast with centralized proprietary models, FOSS allows decentralized creation, distribution and maintenance of code. Such democratization enables grassroots level application of code to solve local problems, leading to more empowered communities. Free flow of code is therefore important to ensure that communities to stay 'plugged in' and current. Code also enables communities to side-step practices such as surveillance, censorship.

A Free, Open, Unfragmented Internet is of critical importance to FOSS--without a free Internet, the FOSS-based peer-production methodologies for code would be infeasible. Interestingly, the Internet also needs the innovations of FOSS to remain free & open, thus forming a positive mutual dependency.

Both FOSS and the Internet are at risk from forces that are seeking increasing control over content and fragmentation, challenging its openness. This would be inimical to the rights of present & future generations to use technology to improve their lives.

The Round-table seeks to highlight perspectives from the participants about the future co-developemnt of FOSS and a free, open Internet; the threats that are emerging; and ways for communities to surmount these.

Name, stakeholder group, and organizational affiliation of workshop proposal co-organizer(s)

Civil Society
Technical Community
Private Sector

Has the proposer, or any of the co-organizers, organized an IGF workshop before?

yes

The link to the workshop report

http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no80-steady-stepsfoss-and-mdgs

Subject matter #tags that describe the workshop

#openInternet #foss #codefordev

Description of the plan to facilitate discussion amongst speakers, audience members and remote participants

Besides specially identified resource persons, the Roundtable will invite IGF participants who are part of FOSS communities around the world (particularly Brazil, which has a vibrant FOSS community). Participation will include real-time remote participation from FOSS communities around the world, as well as Twitter and email-based submission of ideas and thoughts.

The Round-table format has been chosen for many-to-many interactions so as to generate a wealth of ideas. No speaker shall speak for more than 5 minutes. Two moderators will guide discussions, and a rapporteur will ensure that ideas are captured. The report of the Roundtable would be posted to all participating communities so as to stimulate grassroots-level action.

Names and affiliations (stakeholder group, organization) of the participants in the proposed workshop

Mr.Satish Babu, Technical Community, Director, International Centre for FOSS, Trivandrum, India, who shall provide technical inputs of FOSS and its relevance, particularly to emerging economies, Confirmed

Ms. Judy Okite, Civil Society, FOSS Foundation for Africa, is an experienced activist who has been promoting the use of FOSS in Africa. Seeking funding at present.

Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Private Sector, Software Freedom Law Centre, New York, is a lawyer working with FOSS and its legal implications for over two decades. Confirmed

Mr. Fernando Botelho, Private Sector, heads F123 Systems, Brazil, a FOSS-centric company that provides accessibility solutions to visually impaired people. Confirmed

Mr. Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, a civil society organization working on Internet and public policy. Confirmed

Mr. Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, a civil society organization working on Internet and public policy. Confirmed

Ms. Nnenna Nwakanma- WWW.Foundation, a Civil Society organization working in Africa on a broad range of areas including FOSS. Confirmed

Mr. Yves MIEZAN EZO, Open Source strategy consultant, Private Sector. Seeking funding for participation.

Mr. Harish Pillay, Private Sector, RedHat Asia-Pacific. Seeking funding for participation.

Corinto Meffe, Advisor to the President and Directors, SERPRO, Brazil. Confirmed

Frank Coelho de Alcantara, Professor, Universidade Positivo, Brazil, Confirmed

Ms. Caroline Burle, Institutional and International Relations, W3C Brazil Office and Center of Studies on Web Technologies - CeWeb.br (a CGI.br/NIC.br initiative). Confirmed

Name of in-person Moderator(s)

Satish Babu, Mishi Choudhary

Name of Remote Moderator(s)

Judy Okite

Name of Rapporteur(s)

Pranesh Prakash

Description of the proposer's plans for remote participation

Besides around 30 persons at the IGF, we will be providing wide publicity for the workshop through FOSS communities and networks. Besides live audio/video participation, Twitter shall be a key resource for real-time participation. There shall be a Twitter co-ordinator identified whose role will be to tweet the salient points at the Roundtable periodically for the benefit of documenting and informing interested communities.

For those that have either technical difficulties or time-zone problems, ideas and comments can be submitted by email before the workshop to the moderators.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/foss-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development

Forget privacy, Aadhaar Bill gives too much power to the executive

praskrishna — 2016-03-17T14:44:12Z

The government promotes the Aadhaar programme because it believes the 12-digit unique identification number will let them track every penny spent from the exchequer. But money is not all that the Aadhaar number can track.

The article by Aloke Tikku was published in the Hindustan Times on March 17, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

It can help track people too with amazing efficiency. This is at the centre of the controversy around the programme, and the Aadhaar bill that requires every resident to get the number to access government subsidies and services.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley put up a spirited defence of the bill in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday when the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 came up for passage. And he was right.

As far as privacy is concerned, the NDA government’s version is much more stringent than the creaky draft proposed by the UPA in 2010.

Jaitley said there were only two circumstances in which personal data collected by UIDAI could be shared under this bill.

One, if the Aadhaar number holder consents to his details being shared. Second, if a government agency wants to access this data on grounds of national security.

But the debate around privacy concerns – that neither the NDA nor the UPA governments addressed – and the new bill is much more fundamental.

The Aadhaar bill gives the executive too much power to decide how to administer the law.

Every law requires the government to frame rules to specify the nitty-gritty of its implementation.

But the Aadhaar bill passed by Parliament gives the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) the power to prescribe regulations for nearly every provision, right down to what biometric or biological attributes need to be captured.

“The law leaves too much power in the hands of the executive,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-headquartered research advocacy group, Centre for Internet and Society.

For instance, the bill gives the Unique identification Authority of India (UIDAI) powers to determine if it should collect any biological attribute of people too. This means the government could at a later date mandate that DNA of all Aadhaar numbers too be collected.

The example echoed in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday as well.

“No power should be delegated to the UID Authority because then the UID Authority will decide tomorrow that DNA is required, and they will then have the powers to take DNA information as well,” Congress MP Jairam Ramesh said.

The minister tried to explain the reliance on regulations issued by UIDAI – the word ‘regulations’ does appear some 50 times through the legislation – as compared to less than 10 in, say, the right to information law or the 2010 version of the bill.

He said MPs could still review notifications issued by UIDAI when they are placed for parliamentary approval.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-march-17-2016-aloke-tikku-forget-privacy-aadhaar-bill-gives-too-much-power-to-the-executive

Forensic DNA Databases

praskrishna — 2012-10-10T10:57:33Z

A presentation by Jeremy Gruber

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/forensic-dna-databases.ppt