We are anonymous, we are legion

Surveillance Camp: Privatized State Surveillance

praskrishna — 2013-01-29T06:51:39Z

This is the second in a series of posts mapping global surveillance challenges discussed at EFF’s Surveillance Camp in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Katitza Rodriguez's blog post was published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on their website on January 28, 2013. Elonnai Hickok is quoted.

In December 2012, EFF organized a Surveillance and Human Rights Camp in Brazil that brought together the expertise of a diverse group of people concerned about state electronic surveillance in Latin American and other countries. Among other concerns, participants spotlighted the many ways in which the private sector is increasingly playing a role in state surveillance. Here are a few examples:

Voluntary Agreements Between Law Enforcement and Private Companies

Often law enforcement agencies will approach companies asking for voluntary disclosure of information for investigative purposes. Those requests may look and sound more like threats, with a great deal of moral pressure applied on the companies.

This voluntary assistance remains out of the public eye and shrouded in secrecy, as notification of state access is never given to the individual concerned, is not codified in law, and is not clearly disclosed in the company's terms of service or user agreement. Currently there is minimal, if any, oversight over such voluntary cooperation, so the scope of assistance provided is not well-documented.

Canada

Canadian ISPs have jointly decided to provide identifying data about Canadian Internet users to law enforcement in child exploitation investigations. In fact, several Canadian ISPs have developed a formal protocol in conjunction with various law enforcement agencies to be used when those authorities are seeking identification information associated with a given IP address at a specific date and time. Since the adoption of this protocol, some ISPs have expanded their information sharing practices to cover customer identification data in other contexts, such as online harassment cases.

Law Enforcement Approaching Service Providers Without Legally-Required Authorization

A growing concern is the number of law enforcement officers skirting the law by asking service providers to simply fork over information without any sort of search warrant. Even when legal procedures, such as a search warrant, exist, police increasingly request information without obtaining a legal authorization. Nevertheless, they often expect full compliance from service providers.

Chile

In 2008, a Chilean website called Huelga.cl (“strike” in English) was approached by the Cyber Crime Section of the Chilean Police. The site is an online space for coordinating union actions. The agency demanded that the webmaster hand over data related to pseudonymous user accounts, such as IP addresses, records of previous connections, real names, and physical addresses. The targeted users had left comments on a website about an ongoing strike.

In this case, because police did not have a court order to back up the request for information, Huelga.cl took a stand by resisting police pressure and refusing to hand over the data without a fight. For legal assistance, they turned to Derechos Digitales, a Chilean online human rights nonprofit organization, and managed to resist the request.

In another case, the Regional Director of the Chilean Department of Labor, the agency responsible for ensuring the enforcement of labor laws, sent a letter to Huelga.cl simply demanding the removal of “inappropriate content” from their website along with the disclosure of user information, but it was only for administrative purposes as opposed to serious criminal investigations. Huegal.cl again refused to comply and instead, made the director’s demands public.

It is not always the case that service providers can resist extralegal government requests, find legal advice or have enough economic resources to fight against those demands as Huelga.cl did. Huelga.cl should be praised for speaking up and managing to make the request from law enforcement public.

Governments Pressure Private Sector

Governments frequently impose heavy fines for non-compliance with their requests for data access. This form of coercion acts as a mechanism of enforcement over service providers and can raise serious concerns for free expression. The service provider is left with little incentive or option to resist illegitimate requests from the government when they are threatened with heavy fines.

Brazil

In 2012, a judge from northern Brazil froze Google's accounts and imposed a fine on the company for refusing to remove three anonymous blogs or reveal contact details of the bloggers. The content of the blogs state d the mayor of Varzea Alegre of corruption and embezzlement.

While some companies might be able to withstand governmental pressure, alarms were raised that this won’t be the case for smaller companies that lack resources and influence. This is particularly true in contexts where heavy fines for noncompliance are written into legislation, and companies are not given legal avenues to appeal or fight the fine.

Foreign Governments Access To Individuals’ Data in the Cloud

Governments are increasingly seeking to negotiate access or interceptation capabilities to user data with companies that do not lie within their jurisdictions. This form of access is complicated because it is not always clear which country’s laws apply or to what extent. Because of the complex nature of these requests, governments often look for "easy" solutions that call for voluntary disclosure of information or simply allow full access to the user data.

For example, government officials in India have been pushing for real time interception capabilities for all BlackBerry services. In response to the demands from the Indian Government, after a number of unsatisfactory proposals, in 2012 RIM set up a NOC in Mumbai, providing security agencies with access to BlackBerry Messenger services, and created a solution for access to Blackberry Internet Services. In addition to asking RIM for real time access to communications, the Government of India had required Service Providers in India to adopt the solution provided by RIM by end of 2012 or risk being shut down.

According to Elonnai Hickok from the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India, the discussions between RIM and the Indian Government is just one example of how governments are trying to negotiate their interests in light of the challenges posed by communications stored in the cloud and in multiple jurisdictions.

While the Internet is technically borderless, in reality, state actors impose their sovereignty onto online environments with increasing frequency. The exercise of sovereignty over shared spaces can subject individuals to the laws of another country without any awareness on their part that this has happened. This in effect transforms the surveillance efforts of one country into privacy risks for all the world’s citizens.

Conclusion

State agencies and law enforcement are increasingly outsourcing investigations to private companies who are not under the same sort of judicial oversight as official law enforcement entities would be. The increasingly close and non-transparent connection between the private sector and law enforcement needs to be addressed, as it poses a risk to the rights and freedoms of the individual. Of major concern to all Camp participants was the notion that private companies are routinely complying with the requests of law enforcement in the absence of due process. We encourage further research and documentation of this phenomenon. To highlight on this issue, we will be blogging next about the privatization of public security in Latin America.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/electronic-frontier-foundation-january-28-2013-katitza-rodriguez-surveillance-camp-privatized-state-surveillance

Five Frequently Asked Questions about the Amended ITRs

chinmayi — 2013-01-30T05:36:26Z

This piece discusses the five major questions that have been the subject of debate after the World Conference on International Telecommunications 2012 (WCIT). The politics surrounding the WCIT are not discussed here but it must be kept in mind that they have played a significant role in the outcome of the conference and in some of the debates about it.

Each question is discussed with reference to the text of the treaty, to the minutes of the plenary sessions (which are available via the ITU website), a little international law and a few references to other people’s comments on the treaty.

1. Do the ITRs apply to content on the internet?

Article 1.1 (a) has been amended to add the sentence “These Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications”. Although some discussions about the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) and content have ignored this altogether, others seem concerned about its interpretation.

The ITU Secretary General has issued a statement in which he has clarified that “The new ITR treaty does NOT cover content issues and explicitly states in the first article that content-related issues are not covered by the treaty”.

Commentators like Chuan-Zheng Lee however, continue to view the treaty with suspicion, on the basis that it is necessary to examine content in order to tell whether it is spam (Lee and Chaparro differ on this question). However, others like Eric Pfanner have pointed to this paragraph in their skepticism about the US refusal to sign.

Some highlights from the plenary session discussions

The Chairman proposed the addition to Article 1.1(a) at the tenth plenary session. He did this to address concerns that the ITRs text could be interpreted to apply to content on the Internet. The original formulation that he proposed was ‘These regulations do not address and cannot be interpreted as addressing content’. This text was suggested in the middle of an extended discussion on Article 5A.

Many countries were skeptical of this insertion. Sudan argued that content could not be avoided in telecommunication networks “because it will always be in transit.” The United Arab Emirates seemed concerned about international interference in states’ existing regulation of content, and said “maybe we could actually say this in the minutes of the meeting that this regulation should not be interpreted as on alteration to Member States content regulation”.

Concerns about what the term ‘content’ means and whether it would apply broadly were raised by more than one country, including Saudi Arabia. For instance, it was argued that the text proposed by the Chairman might interfere with parts of the treaty that require operators to send tariff information correspondence. More than one country that felt that the insertion of this text would impact several parts of the treaty, and that it would be difficult to determine what amounted to dealing with content. The primary issue appeared to be that the term ‘content’ was not defined, and it therefore remained unclear what was being excluded. In response to these concerns, the Chairman withdrew his proposal for the amendment excluding content.

However, several states then spoke up in favour of the Chairman’s proposal, suggesting that the proposed amendment to Article 1.1 influenced their acceptance of Article 5A (on security and robustness of networks – discussed in detail below). Brazil suggested that an answer to the definitional concerns may be found in the work by Study Group 17, which had a definition available.

Following this, the next day, at the twelfth plenary, the Chairman brought back the Article 1.1 amendment excluding content. He stated explicitly that this amendment might be the way to get Articles 5A and 5B approved. The text he read out was insertion of the words “to the exclusion of their content”, after ‘’services’ at the end of 1.1A. Interestingly however, the term ‘content’ was never defined.

At the next plenary session, Iran raised the objection that this phrase was overbroad, and proposed the following formulation instead: “These Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications”. This formulation found its way into the amended ITRs as the treaty stands today.

2. Does Article 5A on network security legitimize surveillance of Internet content?

Article 5A deals with ‘security and robustness of networks’ and requires member states to “individually and collectively endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunication networks...”. This may have given rise to concerns about interpretations that may extend the security of networks to malware or viruses, and therefore to content on the Internet. However, Article 5A has to be read with Article 1.1(a), and therefore must be interpreted such that it does not ‘address the content-related aspects of telecommunications’.

Some commentators continue to see Article 5A as problematic. Avri Doria has argued that the use of the word ‘security’ in addition to ‘robustness’ of telecommunication infrastructure suggests that it means Internet security. However Emma Llansó of the Centre for Democracy and Technology has noted that the language used in this paragraph is “ far too vague to be interpreted as a requirement or even a recommendation that countries surveil users on their networks in order to maintain security”. Llansó has suggested that civil society advocates make it clear to countries which attempt to use this article to justify surveillance, that it does not lend itself to such practices.

Some highlights from the plenary session discussions

Article 5A was one of the most controversial parts of the ITRs and was the subject of much debate.

On December 11^th, in the Chairman’s draft that was being discussed, Article 5A was titled ‘security of networks’, and required members to endeavour to ensure the “security and robustness of international telecommunication networks”. The Chairman announced that this was the language that came out of Committee 5’s deliberations, and that ‘robustness’ was inserted at the suggestion of CEPT.

Several countries like Poland, Australia, Germany and the United States of America were keen on explicitly stating that Article 5A was confined to the physical or technical infrastructure, and either wanted a clarification that to this effect or use of the term ‘robustness’ instead of security. Many other countries, such as Russia and China, were strongly opposed to this suggestion and insisted that the term security must remain in the document (India was one of the countries that preferred to have the document use the term ‘security’).

It was in the course of this disagreement, during the tenth plenary session, that the Chairman suggested his global solution for Article 1.1 – a clarification that this would not apply to content. This solution was contested by several countries, withdrawn and then reinstated (in the eleventh plenary) after many countries explained that their assent to Article 5A was dependant on the existence of the Article 1 clarification about content (see above for details).

There was also some debate about whether Article 5A should use the term ‘robustness’ or the term ‘security’ (eg. The United States clarified that its preference was for the use of ‘resilience and robustness’ rather than security). The Secretary General referred to this disagreement, and said that he was therefore using both terms in the draft. The title of Article 5A was changed, in the eleventh plenary, to use both terms, instead of only referring to security.

3. Does Article 5B apply to spam content on the Internet?

The text of the amended treaty talks of ‘unsolicited bulk electronic communications’ and does not use the term ‘spam’[Article 5B says that ‘Members should endeavour to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services’].If this phrase is read in isolation, it may certainly be interpreted as being applicable to spam. Commentators like Avri Doria have pointed to sources like Resolution 130 of the Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union (Guadalajara, 2010) to demonstrate that ‘unsolicited bulk electronic communications’ ordinarily means spam. However, others like Enrique A. Chaparro argue that it cannot possibly extend to content on the Internet given the language used in Article 1.1(a). Chapparo has explained, that given the exclusion of content, Article 5B it authorizes anti-spam mechanisms that do not work on content.

Article 5B, which discusses ‘unsolicited bulk electronic communications’, must be read with Article 1, which is the section on purpose and scope of the ITRS. Article 1.1 (a) specifies that the ITRs “do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications”. Therefore it may be argued that ‘unsolicited bulk electronic communications’ cannot be read as being applicable to content on the Internet.

However, many continue to be concerned about Article 5B’s applicability to spam on the Internet. Although some of them that their fear is that some states may interpret Article 5B as applying to content, despite the contents of Article 1.1(a), many have failed to engage with the issue in the context of Article 1.1(a).

Some highlights from the plenary session discussions

Article 5B is inextricably linked with the amendment to Article 1.1. Mexico asked specifically about what the proposed amendment to Article 1.1 would mean for Article 5B: “I’m referring to the item which we’ll deal with later, namely unsolicited bulk electronic communications. Could that be referred to as content, perhaps?”. The Chairman responded saying, “This is exactly will solve the second Article 5B, that we are not dealing with content here. We are dealing with measures to prevent propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic messages”.

The amendment to Article 1.1 was withdrawn soon after it was introduced. Before it was reintroduced, Sweden said (at the eleventh plenary) that it could not see how Article 5B could apply without looking into the content of messages. The United States agreed with this and went on state that the issue of spam was being addressed at the WTSA level, as well as by other organisations. It argued that the spam issue was better addressed at the technical level than by introducing it in treaty text.

The amendment excluding content was reintroduced during the twelfth plenary. The Chairman explicitly stated that it might be the way to get Articles 5A and 5B approved.

The word ‘spam’ was dropped from the ITRs in the eight plenary, and “unsolicited bulk electronic communications” was used instead. However, in the eleventh plenary, as they listed their reasons for not signing the newly-amended ITRs, Canada and the United States of America referred to ‘spam’ which suggests that they may have viewed the change as purely semantic.

4. Does the resolution on Internet Governance indicate that the ITU plans to take over the Internet?

Much controversy has arisen over the plenary resolution ‘to foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet’. This controversy has arisen partly thanks to the manner in which it was decided to include the resolution, and partly over the text of the resolution. The discussion here focuses on the text of the resolution and then describes the proceedings that have been (correctly) criticized.

The history of this resolution, as Wolfgang Kleinwächter has explained, is that it was part of a compromise to appease the countries which were taking positions on the ITU’s role in Internet governance, that were similar to the controversial Russian proposal. The controversial suggestions about Internet governance were excluded from the actual treaty and included instead in a non-binding resolution.

The text of the resolution instructs the Secretary General to “to continue to take the necessary steps for ITU to play an active and constructive role in the development of broadband and the multi-stakeholder model of the Internet as expressed in § 35 of the Tunis Agenda”. This paragraph is particularly controversial since of paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda says “Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues.” Kleinwächter has pointed out that this selection leaves out later additions that have taken place with progression towards a multi-stakeholder model.

The resolution also resolves to invite member states to “to elaborate on their respective positions on international Internet-related technical, development and public-policy issues within the mandate of ITU at various ITU forums including, inter alia, the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum, the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and ITU study groups”.

A little after its introduction, people began expressing concerns such as the Secretary General may treat the resolution as binding, While the language may raise cause for concern, it is important to note that resolutions of this nature are not binding and countries are free to opt out of them. Opinions vary about the intentions that have driven the inclusion of this resolution, and what it may mean for the future. However commentators like Milton Mueller have scoffed at these concerns, pointing out that the resolution is harmless and may have been a clever political maneuver to resolve the basic conflict haunting the WCIT, and that mere discussion of the Internet in the ITU harms no one.

Some highlights from the plenary session discussions

Egypt and Bulgaria suggested that the resolution refer to paragraph 55 of the Tunis agenda instead of paragraph 35, by inserted the following text “”Recognizing that the existing arrangements for Internet Governance have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations and with innovation and value creation at the edges.” The US was also quite insistent on this language (although it did also argue that this was the wrong forum to discuss these issues).

The Chairman was willing to include paragraph 55 in addition to paragraph 35 but Saudi Arabia objected to this inclusion. Finland suggested that the resolution should be removed since it was not supported by all the countries present and was therefore against the spirit of consensus. The Secretary General defended the resolution, suggesting both that it was harmless and that since it was a key component of the compromise, eliminating it would threaten the compromise. South Africa and Nigeria supported this stand.

It was during this debate that the procedural controversy arose. Late into the night, the Chairman said there was a long list of countries that wished to speak and said “I just wanted to have the feel of the room on who will accept the draft resolution”. He proceeded to have countries indicate whether they would accept the draft resolution or not, and then announced that the majority of the countries in the room were in favour of retaining the resolution. The resolution was then retained. Upon Spain’s raising the question, the Chairman clarified that this was not a vote. The next day, other countries raised the same question and the Chairman, while agreeing that the resolution was adopted on the basis of the ‘taking of temperature’ insisted that it was not a vote so much as an effort to see what majority of the countries wanted.

5. Does the human rights language used in the preamble, especially the part about states’ access to the Internet, threaten the Internet in any way?

The preamble says “Member States affirm their commitment to implement these Regulations in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations”, and “These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services”. The text of the preamble can be used as an interpretation aid since it is recognized as providing context to, and detailing the object and purpose of, a treaty. However if the meaning resulting from this appears to be ambiguous, obscure, absurd or unreasonable, then supplementary means such as the preparatory work for the treaty and the circumstances for its conclusion may also be taken into account.

Therefore anyone who is concerned about the impact of the text inserted in the preamble must (a) identify text within the main treaty that could be interpreted in an undesirable manner using the text in the preamble; and (b) consider preparatory work for the treaty and see whether it supports this worrying interpretation. For example, if there were concerns about countries choosing to interpret the term ‘human rights’ as subordinating political rights to economic rights, it would be important to take note of the Secretary General’s emphasis on the UDHR being applicable to all member states.

Initially, only the first insertion about ‘human rights obligations’ was part of the draft treaty. The second insertion, recognizing states’ rights followed after the discussion about human rights language. Some states argued that it was inconsistent to place human rights obligations on states towards their citizens, but to leave out their cross-border obligations. It was immediately after this text was voted into the draft, that the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries refused to sign the ITRs. This particular insertion is phrased as a right of states rather than that of individuals or citizens, which does not align with the language of international human rights. While it may not be strictly accurate to say that human rights have traditionally been individual centric (since collective rights are also recognized in certain contexts), it is certainly very unusual to treat the rights of states or governments as human rights.

Some highlights from the plenary session discussions

The United States of America and the Netherlands wanted to include language to state explicitly that states’ international human rights obligations are not altered in anyway. This was to clarify that the inclusion of human rights language was not setting the ITU up as a forum in which human rights obligations are debated. Malaysia objected to the use of human rights language in the preamble right at the outset, on the grounds that the ITRs are the wrong place for this, and that the right place is the ITU Constitution. It even pointed to the fact that jurisprudence is ever-evolving, to suggest that the meaning of human rights obligations might change over time. These were the two major perspectives offered towards the beginning of the discussion.

The Chairman underlined the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is already applicable to all UN countries. He argued that reflection of these principles in the ITRs would help build universal public faith in the conference.

The first traces of the states’ access rights can be seen in Cuba’s intervention at the ninth plenary – Cuba argued that limiting states’ access to public information networks amounted to infringement of human rights. At the fourteenth plenary, Nigeria proposed on behalf of the African group that the following text be added to the preamble “And recognize the right of access of all Member States to international telecommunication networks and services." Countries like China which had been ambivalent about the human rights language in the preamble, were happy with this move away from an individual-centric understanding of human rights, to one that sees states as representative of people.

The United States was express in its dissent, and said “human rights obligations go to the individual”. Sweden was also not happy with the proposal and argued that it moved away from well-established human rights language that affirmed existing commitments to drafting new human rights language.

It was an amended version of the African group proposal that finally found its way into the preamble. It was supported by many countries such as China, Nigeria and Sudan, who took the position that group rights are included within human rights, and that governments represent their citizens and therefore have rights on their behalf. This position was strenuously disputed by states like the USA, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Canada.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/five-faqs-on-amended-itrs

9th International Asian Conference

praskrishna — 2013-01-25T18:20:22Z

ITechLaw is organizing the 9th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference on February 14 and 15, 2013 in India's high technology capital - Bangalore, India. Sunil Abraham will be speaking at this event.

This info was published on ITechLaw website on January 22, 2013.

This conference will focus on the latest regulatory, commercial and technology law issues being faced by emerging and growth industries in India and Asia as well as the U.S. and Europe.

Conference Program

Day 1, Thursday, February 14, 2013

07:45 - 08:45	Breakfast
09:00 - 09:10	Plenary Welcome Presidential Welcome John Beardwood, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Toronto
09:10 - 09:30	Keynote Address (TBD)
09:30 - 11:15	Intellectual Property Moderator: Calab Gabriel, K&S Partners, New Delhi TBD Pravin Anand, Anand & Anand, New Delhi ISP Liability for IP Infringements Paulo Brancher, BKBG Attorneys at Law, Sao Paulo, Brazil John Doe IP Enforcement in India Sundari Pisupati, Tempus Law & Associates, Hyderabad Counterfeiting in the context of the Semiconductor Industry Gaurav Jabulee, Senior Counsel - Asia, Texas Instruments, Bangalore
11:15 - 11:30	Coffee / Tea / Networking Break
11:30 - 13:00	M & A in the Technology Sector Moderator: Manjula Chawla, Phoenix Legal, New Delhi Successor Liability Sadhana Kaul, GC, 3M, Bangalore Tax Planning for Software and Intellectual Property Transactions Roger Royse, Royse Law Firm, Palo Alto, California Post-M & A Integration of a Tech Company Sivaram Nair, General Counsel, Mphasis India, Bangalore
13:00 - 14:00	Buffet Lunch and Networking
14:00 - 15:30	Licensing and Contracting Moderator: Azmul Haque, Shook Lin & Bok LLP, Singapore Software Licensing Stephane Lemarchand, DLA Piper, Paris, France Contract Termination Richard Marke, BWB, London, UK 21st Century Sourcing - Latest Negotiation Trends and Alternative Contracting Models Nick Pantlin, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, London, UK Internet Gaming and Gambling Moderator: Ananth Padmanabhan, Advocate, Madras High Court Social Gaming Jenna Karadbil, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York Indian Issues in Gaming and Gambling Regulations Talha Salaria, Lawyers at Work, Bangalore Amrut Joshi, Gamechanger Sports Ventures, Bangalore
15:30 - 15:45	Coffee / Tea / Networking Break
15:45 - 17:30	Privacy Issues relating to Employee Data Moderator: Poorvi Chothani, LawQuest International, Mumbai Legal Barriers for BYOD Strategies - A Holistic Approach to Legal Compliance and Security Martin Wiechers, Deutsche Telekom, Germany EU Employee Data Protection Roland Falder, Bird & Bird, Munich, Germany TBD Frederique David, Co-founding partner, TLD Legal, Paris, France Miscellaneous Hot Topics Moderator: Vineet Subramani, Versus, Mumbai Creating an Open Source Policy Heather Meeker, Greenberg Traurig, Palo Alto, California Journalism using Social Media - Issues relating to Freedom of Expression, Privacy and Interpretation of India's Information Technology Act. Swati Sukumar, Advocate, New Delhi Estate Planning for Digital Properties Wendy Goffe, Stoel Rives, Seattle, WA, USA
18:00 - 19:00	I-WIN Tea
19:30 - 22:00	Gala Dinner (Ticketed Event)

Day 2, Friday, February 15, 2013

08:00 - 08:45	Breakfast
09:00 - 09:30	Keynote Address (TBD)
09:30 - 11:15	Privacy: Data Protection Issues Across the Globe Moderator: Gabriela Kennedy, Hogan Lovells, Hong Kong Cross Border Transfers of Employee Data Dr. Wolfgang Büchner, Jones Day, Munich, Germany Data Protection Reform in the EU Kristian Foss, Gille advokater DA, Oslo, Norway Addressing the Criminal Aspects of Data Protection Violations Claire Bernier, Altanalaw, Paris, France
11:15 - 11:30	Coffee / Tea / Networking Break
11:30 - 13:00	E-Commerce Moderator: Raji Nagarkar, Cisco, Bangalore Privacy Aspects of E-Commerce in Australia Philip Catania, Corrs Chambers Westgart, Melbourne, Australia Retail Trading and E-Commerce in India Samuel Mani, MCM, Bangalore Commerce in the Social Media TBD
13:00 - 14:00	Buffet Lunch and Networking
14:00 - 15:30	Outsourcing Moderator: Bradley Joslove, Franklin, Paris Current Issues - Customer Perspective Mark Rasdale, A&L Goodbody, Dublin, Ireland Current Issues - Service Provider Perspective Kalpana Muthireddi, CSC India, Bangalore 2nd Generation Outsourcing Transactions Ulrich Baeumer, Osborne Clarke, Cologne, Germany
15:30 - 15:45	Coffee / Tea / Networking Break
15:45 - 17:00	Cloud 2.0 Issues Moderator: Rajesh Narang, VP legal & CS, Mindtree, Bangalore Virtual Offices and Cloud Computing - Legal Issues Genevieve Gill, GenLaw, Auckland, New Zealand Regulating the Cloud S.P. Purwar, J. Sagar Associates, Gurgaon Information Security in the Cloud Nagakumar Somasundaram, Amba Research, Bangalore
17:00 - 18:00	Censorship of Online Content Moderator: Stephen Mathias, Kochhar & Co., Bangalore Panel Discussion with the following Panelist Marc S Friedman, SNR Denton, New York, USA Priti Suri, PSA, New Delhi Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society
18:00 - 18-30	Closing Remarks Raffle Valedictory John Beardwood, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Toronto
18:30 - 20:00	Closing Reception

See the speakers list here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/itech-law-india-ninth-intl-asian-conference

Internet Freedom in India – Open to Debate

praskrishna — 2013-01-25T10:45:56Z

In the aftermath of an Index on Censorship debate in New Delhi, Kirsty Hughes says India’s web users are standing at a crossroads

This article by Kirsty Hughes was published in Index on Censorship. CIS's research on censorship is quoted.

If debate is a sign of a positive environment for internet freedom, then India scores highly. From debates in parliament, and panel discussions (including Index’s own recent event) to newspaper editorials, blogs and tweets on the rights and wrongs of internet freedom, controls on the web, and India’s position in the international debate, there is no shortage of voices and views.

India has around 120 million web users — a large number but still only about 10 per cent of the country’s population. As cheaper smart phones enable millions more to access the net on their mobiles, India’s net savvy population is set to soar in the next few years. But what sort of online environment they will find is open to question — and to wide debate.

India has some very broad laws that could apply to a wide range of online speech, comment and criticism. These laws have been so far rather randomly applied. But the cases that have arisen — from individuals criticising politicians by email, Facebook or Twitter to some of the big web companies such as Google and Facebook (both facing numerous takedown requests and court cases in India) — show just why India needs to look at limiting both the range of some of its net laws, and to stop these laws criminalising a range of speech.

In 2012, there was widespread outcry in India when two women were arrested for complaining on Facebook about the disruption caused by the funeral of Bal Thackeray, leader of the right wing Hindu party, Shiv Sena. They were arrested under the infamous section 66A of India’s IT Act (2008) which criminalises “grossly offensive” and “menacing” messages sent by electronic means, but also “false” messages sent to cheat, deceive, mislead or annoy, taking online censorship beyond offline laws.

India’s telecom minister Kapil Sibal spoke out against the arrests. And as part of the fallout, guidelines were announced that in future any such charges could only be brought by senior police. But how effective such a restriction might be was challenged, with aTimes of India editorial suggesting “rampant political interference in law enforcement is itself a burning issue…so to argue that senior police officers will always resist mob pressure or political diktats isn’t persuasive.”

Other parts of the IT Act (2008) are also causing a chilling atmosphere in India’s cyber sphere — with new regulations introduced in 2011 obliging internet service providers to take down content within 36 of a complaint (whether an individual, organisation, government body or anyone else) or face prosecution. The law covers a sweeping range of grounds for complaint, including “grossly harmful”, “harassing, “blasphemous” and more. It also is confused on liability – holding intermediaries large and small responsible for content on websites and platforms.

One of India’s leading policy centres on digital issues, the Centre for Internet and Society, decided to test how this 36-hour takedown rule could result in censorship of innocuous and legal content on web sites. They sent complaints to four main search engines across a range of content — and as a result got thousands of innocuous posts removed; a censor’s dream outcome.

Despite a debate in parliament calling for repeal of the 2011 rules, for now they remain.

Some observers suggest the Indian government is catch-up mode, not fully understanding the reach or nature of social media or how to deal with the international range and speed of the web today — something plenty of other governments around the world are showing some confusion about. Some think the lively debate on net freedom in India reflects the voice and demands of the growing Indian middle class. But whether those demands remain pro-freedom is yet to be seen as internet penetration grows apace.

There are some other encouraging signs. While many in India are not keen at US dominance of key parts of internet regulation, there was concern from business and civil society ahead of the International Telecommunications Union summit in December 2012, when the Indian government looked like it might advocate some form of top down control of the web as an alternative. In the event, India, like the EU and US, did not go along with Russia, China and others keen to include net governance into the ITU’s remit.

India is going to be an increasingly influential voice in global internet debates — with its rapidly growing number of netizens and its increasing clout more widely in a multipolar world.

Its healthy and lively debate about digital freedom stands as a beacon of hope in the face of some of its more disturbing laws. But the laws will need to change, if India is to be a country that stands for internet freedom.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/index-on-censorship-kirsty-hughes-january-22-2013-internet-freedom-in-india

Cyber security, surveillance and the right to privacy: country perspectives

praskrishna — 2013-01-23T12:10:23Z

This blog post is fourth in a series of eight blog posts to report on the “Third South Asian Meeting on the Internet and Freedom of Expression” recently concluded in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

This post was published in the Internet Democracy Project Website on January 22, 2013. All the blog posts in this series are written by Richa Kaul Padte, the official rapporteur at the meeting.

'The best way to protect people’s rights is to enable people to protect their rights themselves' – Chinmayi Arun

Pranesh Prakash, CIS India	Opening the session on cyber security, surveillance and privacy, moderator Pranesh Prakash from the Centre for Internet and Society (India) frames the debate by talking about how the principles raised by discussions on security, privacy and surveillance are always in tension with each other. ‘The boundaries that have been drawn in a pre-digital era don’t apply online always [and] the classic model of state-controlled surveillance is not as relevant [today].’

Taking forward the discussion by setting both a global and national framework around the issue, Assistant Professor at the Delhi-based National Law University Chinmayi Arun brings to light the ways in which cyber security is consistently tabled on several global agendas; however, with little to no meaningful parallel discussions around the right to privacy. She also connects the idea of surveillance to notions of censorship vis a vis freedom of expression, and poignantly states: ‘surveillance is a lot more insidious than censorship – [so much] more can take place before people realise it is happening.’ Prakash furthers this idea in his transition between country perspectives by highlighting the ways in which surveillance measures are already established and heavily pervasive, with both Prakash and Arun advocating greater transparency in areas where these measures are in place. As Arun says, ‘it’s not true that every instance of surveillance needs to be secret until it’s done’, and distinguishing between necessary surveillance measures (in the case of crime investigations, for example) and those that position all people as criminals who must be monitored, is key to taking the discussion forward.

Chinmayi Arun, National Law University Delhi, India

Mohammed Nazmuzzaman Bhuian, Dhaka University

Mohammad Nazmuzzaman Bhuian, an Associate Professor from the University of Dhaka, opens a Bangladeshi country perspective with the question, ‘how does a cyber security act become a surveillance act?’ A cyber crime refers to any crime that involves a computer or a network, and the crimes under this can play out in two ways. The computer itself may be a target, or it may be used to carry out a crime. It is when it is used to carry out a crime that the question of online surveillance arises

Offering another perspective from Bangladesh, Head of the Centre for IT Security and Privacy and Assistant Professor, University of Asia Pacific, Mohammad Shahriar Rahman, discusses the manipulation of security and surveillance laws by the State in order to create greater security for itself. He cites the ban of YouTube in the country in response to a US-produced video ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed and the attacks on bloggers who have advocated for free speech on the Internet, including speech that may be anti-authoritarian or anti-religious. These examples echo Mariyath Mohamed’s perspectives on the interplay between religion, politics and censorship from the previous session, which clearly resound through many South Asian countries.

Mohammad Shahriar Rahman, University of Asia Pacific, Bangladesh

Kailash Prasad Neupane, Nepal Telecommunications Authority	Perspectives from Nepal, offered by speaker Kailash Prasad Neupane from the Nepal Telecommunications Authority, highlight the acute similarities between the laws in different South Asian countries, which all position the freedom of expression as ‘subject to certain restrictions’, where the subjectivity of the clause tends to be interpreted by a powerful and majority State against its minority citizens, thus undermining both democracy and citizens’ rights. As Rahman says, ‘if the government wants to be seen as democratic in these times, they need to realise you can’t jail everyone who is critical of the Prime Minister.’

Speaking from the floor, Bishakha Datta, from Mumbai-based women’s media organisation Point of View, expands on the speakers’ views by highlighting the ways in which, given the extensive measures of State security and surveillance, societies themselves become structured around a culture of surveillance that citizens in turn internalise and see as a necessary part of their lives. She asks, ‘when we talk about the right to privacy, are we saying that we are willing to accept surveillance as long as our privacy is maintained, or are we opposing it on the grounds of privacy?’ Echoing Prakash’s idea that ‘the way in which security and privacy are portrayed as being at loggerheads is false’, Arun responds to Datta by advocating privacy as the starting point for all discussions surrounding security. In summary she states, ‘we must underline our right to privacy,and that right must always dominate. One must always start with that right, and then narrow the circumstances in which, only when it is absolutely necessary and to the extent absolutely necessary, it may be violated.’ And it is through this consistent demand for the right to privacy, and the placing of citizens and individuals (rather than the interests of the State) at the heart of these conversations, that we can see security and privacy as co-existing notions that work to ensure, rather than suppress, freedom of expression.	Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/internet-democracy-richa-kaul-padte-jan-22-2013-cyber-security-surveillance-and-the-right-to-privacy

TV versus Social Media: The Rights and Wrongs

sunil — 2013-01-21T03:09:56Z

For most ordinary Netizens, everyday speech on social media has as much impact as graffiti in a toilet, and therefore employing the 'principle of equivalence' will result in overregulation of new media.

Sunil Abraham's guest column was published in the Tribune on January 20, 2013.

Many in traditional media, especially television, look at social media with a mixture of envy and trepidation. They have been at the receiving end of various unsavoury characters online and consequently support regulation of social media. A common question asked by television anchors is "shouldn't they be subject to the same regulation as us?" This is because they employ the 'principle of equivalence', according to which speech that is illegal on broadcast media should also be illegal on social media and vice versa. According to this principle, criticising a bandh on national TV or in a newspaper op-ed or on social media should not result in jail time and, conversely, publishing obscene content, in either new or old media, should render you a guest of the state.

Given that Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, places more draconian and arguably unconstitutional limits on free speech when compared to the regulation of traditional and broadcast media, those in favour of civil liberties may be tempted to agree with the 'principle of equivalence' since that will mean a great improvement from status quo. However, we must remember that this compromise goes too far since potential for harm through social media is usually very limited when compared to traditional media, especially when it comes to hate speech, defamation and infringement of privacy. A Facebook update or 'like' or a tweet from an ordinary citizen usually passes completely unnoticed. On rare occasion, an expression on social media originating from an ordinary citizen goes viral and then the potential for harm increases dramatically. But since this is the fringe case we cannot design policy based on it. On the other hand, public persons (those occupying public office and those in public life), including television journalists, usually have tens and hundreds of thousands friends and followers on these social networks and, therefore, can more consistently cause harm through their speech online. For most ordinary Netizens, everyday speech on social media has as much impact as graffiti in a public or residential toilet and therefore employing the 'principle of equivalence' will result in overregulation of new media.

Ideally speech regulation should address the asymmetries in the global attention economy by constantly examining the potential for harm. This applies to both 'speech about' public persons and also 'speech by' them. Since 'speech about' public persons is necessary for transparent and accountable governance and public discourse, such speech must be regulated less than 'speech about' ordinary citizens. Let us understand this using two examples: One, a bunch of school kids referring to a classmate as an idiot on a social network is bullying, but citizens using the very same term to criticise a minister or television anchor must be permitted. Two, an ordinary citizen should be allowed to photograph or video-record the acts of a film or sports star at a public location and upload it to a social network, but this exception to the right of privacy based on public interest will not imply that the same ordinary citizen can publish photographs or videos of other ordinary citizens. Public scrutiny and criticism is part of the price to be paid for occupying public office or public life. If speech regulation is configured to prevent damage to the fragile egos of public persons, then it would have a chilling effect on many types of speech that are critical in a democracy and an open society.

When it comes to 'speech by' those in public office or in public life - given the greater potential for harm - they should be held more liable for their actions online. For example, an ordinary citizen with less than 100 followers causes very limited harm to the reputation of a particular person through a defamatory tweet. However, if the very same tweet is retweeted by a television anchor with millions of followers, there can be more severe damage to that particular person's reputation.

Many in television also wish to put an end to anonymous and pseudonymous speech online. They would readily agree with Nandan Nilekani's vision of tagging all - visits to the cyber cafe, purchases of broadband connections and SIM cards and, therefore, all activities from social media accounts with the UID number. I have been following coverage of the Aadhaar project for the past three years. Often I see a 'senior official from the UIDAI' make a controversial point. If anonymous speech is critical to protect India's identity project then surely it is an important form of speech. But, unlike the print media, which more regularly uses anonymous sources for their stories, television doesn't see clearly the connection between anonymous speech and free media. This is because many of the trolls that harass them online often hide behind pseudonymous identities. Television forgets that anonymous speech is at the very foundation of our democracy, i.e., the electoral ballot.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/sunday-tribune-january-20-2013-sunil-abraham-tv-vs-social-media

Web of Sameness

nishant — 2013-01-18T06:17:29Z

The social Web has been an ominous space at the start of 2013. It has been awash with horror, pain and grief. The recent gang rape and death of a medical student in Delhi prevents one from being too optimistic about the year to come. My live feeds on various social networks are filled with rue and rage at the gruesome incident and the seeming depravity of our society.

Nishant Shah's column was published in the Indian Express on January 18, 2013.

As I contemplate the event, I see that the Web has become a space for coping with pain and mitigating the horror of our lives. I feel comforted, when I go online, and see people grieving for a woman they never knew, and demanding better conditions for all. As I look at these resolves for change, battle cries demanding justice, and angry responses directed at imagined and imaginary perpetrators of these crimes, I realise that I have heard it all before, over and over again.

“Not Again!” has been the refrain of the year. If life were a musical, this would have been the persistent chorus line of 2012. From fighting against censorship and violation of privacy by government and corporations to acts of hatred, or from ridiculing the map glitches on the iPhone to seeing the growing stronghold of authoritarian forces over the social Web, we have repeatedly rolled our digital sleeves, gnashed our fingers on the keyboards and shouted in political solidarity, “Not Again!”. While this show of protest, this robust expression of change holds a promise of how things will change for the better, it is also a refrain that has lost its bite. What does it mean, this ability to repeatedly say “Not Again!” only to experience these horrors in despairing cyclic patterns?

I want to see how the social Web and the new public spheres online might offer us outlets for emotions but not necessarily platforms for action. Some of the earliest critiques of the Web expressed the fear that given the extreme customisation of social networks, we might soon reside only in digital echo chambers. In the heavily informatised ages that we live in, it is not uncommon to set up specific groups that we belong to, identify friends that we talk with, mark people we follow, set up circles we share in, and configure filters that help us receive information that is tailor-made to suit our personalised preferences. Unfortunately, this quest for selective information sampling often means that we separate the digital spaces of life from the physical ones, without even realising it. We might be seamlessly navigating these two spaces, not really caring for the distinctions of “virtual reality” and “real life”, but in instances like these, it is easy to see how we shroud ourselves in echo chambers, never allowing voices to translate into the world of action.

You are sure to have been bombarded with tweets that have insightfully analysed the conditions of safety in our public spaces. And in all of this, like me, you must have been comforted thinking that there is still hope. But for every “like” you received on your status update, for every time your tweet got favourited or retweeted, for every time you found yourself agreeing with the social experts, you also separated yourself from the reality. Because the people who gave your opinions the attention, are actually people just like you. They are already on your side of things. Talking to them, exchanging ideas with them, calling for change side-by-side is like preaching to the choir, but it gives us a sense of having reached out. The voices in an echo chamber are not just repeated ad nauseum, but they are also not heard by anybody else on the outside, thus stifling the energy and passions that might have resulted in real change.

The Web also offers an easy separation of us versus them. As coping mechanisms and as a way of distancing ourselves from these events, the Web offers us a clear disavowal of guilt. The young man, who shot those children in the school, was mentally unstable. The laws that allowed him to purchase guns are because of the politicians and the arms industry. The student, who got raped in a bus, is the responsibility of the ‘rape capital’ Delhi. If we were in charge, these things would not have happened this way. But now they have happened, and so we will be angry, we will be shocked, we will tweet “Not Again!” and then quickly shift our ever-expanding attention to the burgeoning space of information online.

And then we will wait, for the next incident to happen — oh, not the same, but similar — and we will go through this process once again.

If I have to look into the future and hope that 2013 shall be the year of change, then I am hoping that the change will be from “Not Again” to a “Never Again”. We will have to learn how to use the energy, the power of the Web, the influence of the digital crowds on the digital commons, to produce a change that goes beyond the social network feeds.

I hope that the social Web matures. We have to make sure that the promise of change that the digital social network offers, does not die as armchair clicktivism that witnesses but does nothing to change the act that affects us.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indianexpress-nishant-shah-january-12-2013-web-of-sameness

Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?

praskrishna — 2013-02-03T10:50:52Z

This week Index held a high level panel debate in partnership with the Editors Guild of India and the India International Centre to discuss the question “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Mahima Kaul reports

This post by Mahima Kaul was published in Index on Censorship on January 18, 2013.

Index on Censorship, in partnership with The Editors Guild of India, hosted a debate in New Delhi on Tuesday (15 January) asking, “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Discussing the topic were Ajit Balakrishnan (founder and Chief Executive of rediff.com), Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes, Sunil Abraham (Executive Director of the centre for Internet and Society), and Professor Timothy Garton Ash, Director of the Free Speech Debate project.

Sunil Abraham questioned the idea of technology specific “internet freedom” that has been advocated by many not least the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He said there was for instance much greater freedom and diversity on Indian TV than in the US. He also argued that that this freedom does not seem to extend to a right of access to knowledge, as demonstrated by the charges brought against open access activist and developer Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide earlier this month. Swartz was facing charges for allegedly downloading 4.8 million academic articles from subscription-only digital library JSTOR.

Abraham said one unintentional effect of censorship by governments is that it teaches citizens how to protect themselves online. Finally, he questioned the Indian government’s draconian laws and arbitrary actions in the digital realm, wondering whether this is the authorities’ way of warning future netizens about “acceptable online behaviour”, to condition the public not to criticise the government and to create a chilling effect.

Digital

Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?

18 Jan 2013

This week Index held a high level panel debate in partnership with the Editors Guild of India and the India International Centre to discuss the question “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Mahima Kaul reports

Freedom of expression is always under threat and in need of defending, argued Timothy Garton Ash. However, he didn’t think the threat was particularly high today in the digital realm — rather the threats to privacy were what were particularly concerning online. With 76.8 per cent of India’s 1.2 billion population connected by mobile phone, there is an extraordinary opportunity for the prevalence of freedom of expression brought about by new technologies. But he said there are also a lot of challenges to free expression in India — and that “swing states” such as Brazil and India will be very important in determining where the global conversation goes on freedom of expression

Ajit Balakrishnan, founder of web portal Rediff.com, explained that many of the problems that have occurred in the digital realm in India have to do with poor drafting of legislation. He was particularly concerned about intermediary liability and explained why and how intermediaries roles needed protecting. He also explained that government officials have genuine problems with phrasing, and that when it comes to the application of these laws, understanding them and when they should be applied will take another 25 years. He added that the country is challenged by a legal system ill-equipped for coping with new technologies.

Kirsty Hughes said that freedom of expression is a universal right, meant to be applied across borders not just within countries. She said that while the digital domain allowed a big expansion in freedom of expression there were risks we are heading towards a more controlled net, a partially censored net, and a fragmented net (for instance with Iran attempting to build its own internet disconnected from the rest of the world). She said that some of the negative reactions by government to social media in India were seen to in the UK where there had been a trend towards criminalising supposedly offensive comment — although the new interim guidelines on social media prosecutions were a step in the right direction. Hughes emphasised three main concerns — state censorship, privatisation of censorship and the role of big companies, and mass surveillance. She pointed out that the British government had pushed for extensive surveillance with the Communications Data Bill, but this has now been shelved after a critical report from MPs.

Ramanjit Singh Chima, policy adviser for Google, said that the question is not about absolute freedom, but about what is appropriate and lawful. He emphasised that in the US, judges had strongly defended free expression online as they saw the digital world as a powerful space for free exprssion. He pointed out how effective social media tools, including Google’s own products, have become in helping during emergency situations like natural disasters and terrorist attacks. He also pointed out that the internet is not only about free expression but business as well. The internet contributes to 1.6 per cent of India’s GDP. Singh Chima said positive judgements by US and EU courts protect the users, adding that regulation for the net should be appropriate for its engineering.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/index-on-censorship-mahima-kaul-january-18-2013-is-freedom-of-expression-under-threat-in-the-digital-age

Is freedom of expression under threat in digital age?

praskrishna — 2013-01-17T06:16:09Z

With social networking site Facebook boasting of 1 billion members globally and micro-blogging site Twitter claiming millions, opinion was divided on whether the freedom of expression was under threat in the digital age.

This article was originally published by Indo Asian News Service on January 16, 2013. It was also covered in Business Standard, Vancouver Desi, DNA, and Tech2. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

"Censorship of content should be the last resort as curbing a particular content online actually amplifies its spread over the internet," said Sunil Abraham from Centre for Internet and Society.

He was speaking at a panel discussion organised by London based Index on Censorship and the Editors Guild of India on the issue at the India International Centre Tuesday evening.

"The government has refused to amend Section 66(A) of the IT Act which is used to curb free speech on the net," said Guild chief TN Ninan who moderated the debate. "The law treats digital media differently than the print media," he said.

Director of Free Speech Debate, Oxford University, Timothy Garton Ash said, "There was no threat to the freedom of speech as internet was actually an opportunity for spreading freedom of expression."

India with the large number of net users could act as swing state between two extremes of China which is trying to control the net and the US which champions free speech, he said.

"The question is what are the legitimate limits of free speech rather than asking for unlimited speech," said Ash.

Ajit Balakrishnan, CEO and founder of online portal rediff.com, said "there was a sense of powerlessness among nation states as only local laws applied to any such violations."

He said the internet was not so democratic as it sounded as the actual numbers of users who posted content on Facebook were just 8-9 million while the rest just watched. The same was with Twitter with just 7-8 percent users actually posting messages.

Kirsty Hughes, CEO, Index on Censorship, said "freedom of speech was universal" while noting a "worrying trend that increasingly governments were moving to control the internet."

"The risks of such controls are that we could have a much more controlled, censored and fragmented internet," she said.

Ramanjit Singh Chima of Google India stressed on the need to have laws to protect internet freedom as such curbs affected livelihood of many users and contributed to local economies.

He said the internet allowed people to instantly collaborate and publish critical information during emergency situations.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ians-news-is-freedomexpression-under-threat-in-digital-age

An Introduction to Bitfilm and Bitcoin – A Discussion by Aaron Koenig

praskrishna — 2013-02-05T10:14:54Z

The Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore invites you to a talk by Aaron Koenig, Managing Director, Bitfilm Networks of Hamburg, Germany on January 23, 2013, from 7.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.

The Talk

Aaron Koenig will give a talk on the creation and use of Bitcoin, a new digital currency and payment system designed for the voting process of the Bitfilm Festival for Digital Film. Since the year 2000, the Bitfilm Festival has been showcasing films that use digital technology in a creative and innovative way. It takes place on the Internet. However, physical screenings of the films will be held in Bangalore and in Hamburg. Each of the 59 nominated digital animations has its own Bitcoin account, and users worldwide may vote by donating Bitcoins to the films they like anonymously and without any transfer costs. The donated money will be divided among the most popular films (the films with the most votes/Bitcoins).

Aaron will also present an animated short about Bitcoin which he has produced with an animation team based in Bangalore. Of course, the animators were paid in Bitcoin.

More info on the Bitfilm Festival: http://www.bitfilm.com/festival
More info on Bitcoin: http://blink.li/current-issue

VIDEO

Aaron Koenig

Aaron is the Managing Director of Bitfilm. He has run the organization since 1999. He is a vibrant member of art and film societies and an Entrepreneur. Currently engaged with Bitfilm.com, Aaron also publishes a political magazine called BLINK.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/bitfilm-and-bitcoin-a-discussion-by-aaron-koenig

Draft International Principles on Communications Surveillance and Human Rights

elonnai — 2013-07-12T15:55:45Z

These principles were developed by Privacy International and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and seek to define an international standard for the surveillance of communications. The Centre for Internet and Society has been contributing feedback to the principles.

The principles are still in draft form. The most recent version can be accessed here. This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

Our goal is that these principles will provide civil society groups, industry, and governments with a framework against which we can evaluate whether current or proposed surveillance laws and practices are consistent with human rights. We are concerned that governments are failing to develop legal frameworks to adhere to international human rights and adequately protect communications privacy, particularly in light of innovations in surveillance laws and techniques.

These principles are the outcome of a consultation with experts from civil society groups and industry across the world. It began with a meeting in Brussels in October 2012 to address shared concerns relating to the global expansion of government access to communications. Since the Brussels meeting we have conducted further consultations with international experts in communications surveillance law, policy and technology.[1]

We are now launching a global consultation on these principles. Please send us comments and suggestions by January 3rd 2013, by emailing rights (at) eff (dot) org.

Preamble
Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and association, and is recognised under international human rights law.[2] Activities that infringe on the right to privacy, including the surveillance of personal communications by public authorities, can only be justified where they are necessary for a legitimate aim, strictly proportionate, and prescribed by law.[3]

Before public adoption of the Internet, well-established legal principles and logistical burdens inherent in monitoring communications generally limited access to personal communications by public authorities. In recent decades, those logistical barriers to mass surveillance have decreased significantly. The explosion of digital communications content and information about communications, or “communications metadata”, the falling cost of storing and mining large sets of data, and the commitment of personal content to third party service providers make surveillance possible at an unprecedented scale.[4]

While it is universally accepted that access to communications content must only occur in exceptional situations, the frequency with which public authorities are seeking access to information about an individual’s communications or use of electronic devices is rising dramatically—without adequate scrutiny. [5] When accessed and analysed, communications metadata may create a profile of an individual's private life, including medical conditions, political and religious viewpoints, interactions and interests, disclosing even greater detail than would be discernible from the content of a communication alone. [6] Despite this, legislative and policy instruments often afford communications metadata a lower level of protection and do not place sufficient restrictions on how they can be subsequently used by agencies, including how they are data-mined, shared, and retained.

It is therefore necessary that governments, international organisations, civil society and private service providers articulate principles establishing the minimum necessary level of protection for digital communications and communications metadata (collectively "information") to match the goals articulated in international instruments on human rights— including a democratic society governed by the rule of law. The purpose of these principles is to:

Provide guidance for legislative changes and advancements related to communications and communications metadata to ensure that pervasive use of modern communications technology does not result in an erosion of privacy.
Establish appropriate safeguards to regulate access by public authorities (government agencies, departments, intelligence services or law enforcement agencies) to communications and communications metadata about an individual’s use of an electronic service or communication media.

We call on governments to establish stronger protections as required by their constitutions and human rights obligations, or as they recognize that technological changes or other factors require increased protection.

These principles focus primarily on rights to be asserted against state surveillance activities. We note that governments are required not only to respect human rights in their own conduct, but to protect and promote the human rights of individuals in general.[7] Companies are required to follow data protection rules and yet are also compelled to respond to lawful requests. Like other initiatives,[8] we hope to provide some clarity by providing the below principles on how state surveillance laws must protect human rights.

The Principles

Legality: Any limitation to the right to privacy must be prescribed by law. Neither the Executive nor the Judiciary may adopt or implement a measure that interferes with the right to privacy without a previous act by the Legislature that results from a comprehensive and participatory process. Given the rate of technological change, laws enabling limitations on the right to privacy should be subject to periodic review by means of a participatory legislative or regulatory process

Legitimate Purpose: Laws should only allow access to communications or communications metadata by authorised public authorities for investigative purposes and in pursuit of a legitimate purpose, consistent with a free and democratic society.

Necessity: Laws allowing access to communications or communications metadata by authorised public authorities should limit such access to that which is strictly and demonstrably necessary, in the sense that an overwhelmingly positive justification exists, and justifiable in a democratic society in order for the authority to pursue its legitimate purposes, and which the authority would otherwise be unable to pursue. The onus of establishing this justification, in judicial as well as in legislative processes, is on the government.

Adequacy: Public authorities should restrain themselves from adopting or implementing any measure of intrusion allowing access to communications or communications metadata that is not appropriate for fulfillment of the legitimate purpose that justified establishing that measure.

Competent Authority: Authorities capable of making determinations relating to communications or communications metadata must be competent and must act with independence and have adequate resources in exercising the functions assigned to them.

Proportionality: Public authorities should only order the preservation and access to specifically identified, targeted communications or communications metadata on a case-by-case basis, under a specified legal basis. Competent authorities must ensure that all formal requirements are fulfilled and must determine the validity of each specific attempt to access or receive communications or communications metadata, and that each attempt is proportionate in relation to the specific purposes of the case at hand. Communications and communications metadata are inherently sensitive and their acquisition should be regarded as highly intrusive. As such, requests should at a minimum establish a) that there is a very high degree of probability that a serious crime has been or will be committed; b) and that evidence of such a crime would be found by accessing the communications or communications metadata sought; c) other less invasive investigative techniques have been exhausted; and d) that a plan to ensure that the information collected will be only that information reasonably related to the crime and that any excess information collected will be promptly destroyed or returned. Neither the scope of information types, the number or type of persons whose information is sought, the amount of data sought, the retention of that data held by the authorities, nor the level of secrecy afforded to the request should go beyond what is demonstrably necessary to achieve a specific investigation.

Due process: Due process requires that governments must respect and guarantee an individual’s human rights, that any interference with such rights must be authorised in law, and that the lawful procedure that governs how the government can interfere with those rights is properly enumerated and available to the general public.[9]While criminal investigations and other considerations of public security and safety may warrant limited access to information by public authorities, the granting of such access must be subject to guarantees of procedural fairness. Every request for access should be subject to prior authorisation by a competent authority, except when there is imminent risk of danger to human life. [10]

User notification: Notwithstanding the notification and transparency requirements that governments should bear, service providers should notify a user that a public authority has requested his or her communications or communications metadata with enough time and information about the request so that a user may challenge the request. In specific cases where the public authority wishes to delay the notification of the affected user or in an emergency situation where sufficient time may not be reasonable, the authority should be obliged to demonstrate that such notification would jeopardize the course of investigation to the competent judicial authority reviewing the request. In such cases, it is the responsibility of the public authority to notify the individual affected and the service provider as soon as the risk is lifted or after the conclusion of the investigation, whichever is sooner.

Transparency about use of government surveillance: The access capabilities of public authorities and the process for access should be prescribed by law and should be transparent to the public. The government and service providers should provide the maximum possible transparency about the access by public authorities without imperiling ongoing investigations, and with enough information so that individuals have sufficient knowledge to fully comprehend the scope and nature of the law, and when relevant, challenge it. Service providers must also publish the procedure they apply to deal with data requests from public authorities.

Oversight: An independent oversight mechanism should be established to ensure transparency of lawful access requests. This mechanism should have the authority to access information about public authorities' actions, including, where appropriate, access to secret or classified information, to assess whether public authorities are making legitimate use of their lawful capabilities, and to publish regular reports and data relevant to lawful access. This is in addition to any oversight already provided through another branch of government such as parliament or a judicial authority. This mechanism must provide – at a minimum – aggregate information on the number of requests, the number of requests that were rejected, and a specification of the number of requests per service provider and per type of crime. [11]

Integrity of communications and systems: It is the responsibility of service providers to transmit and store communications and communications metadata securely and to a degree that is minimally necessary for operation. It is essential that new communications technologies incorporate security and privacy in the design phases. In order, in part, to ensure the integrity of the service providers’ systems, and in recognition of the fact that compromising security for government purposes almost always compromises security more generally, governments shall not compel service providers to build surveillance or monitoring capability into their systems. Nor shall governments require that these systems be designed to collect or retain particular information purely for law enforcement or surveillance purposes. Moreover, a priori data retention or collection should never be required of service providers and orders for communications and communications metadata preservation must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Finally, present capabilities should be subject to audit by an independent public oversight body.

Safeguards for international cooperation: In response to changes in the flows of information and the technologies and services that are now used to communicate, governments may have to work across borders to fight crime. Mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) should ensure that, where the laws of more than one state could apply to communications and communications metadata, the higher/highest of the available standards should be applied to the data. Mutual legal assistance processes and how they are used should also be clearly documented and open to the public. The processes should distinguish between when law enforcement agencies can collaborate for purposes of intelligence as opposed to sharing actual evidence. Moreover, governments cannot use international cooperation as a means to surveil people in ways that would be unlawful under their own laws. States must verify that the data collected or supplied, and the mode of analysis under MLAT, is in fact limited to what is permitted. In the absence of an MLAT, service providers should not respond to requests of the government of a particular country requesting information of users if the requests do not include the same safeguards as providers would require from domestic authorities, and the safeguards do not match these principles.

Safeguards against illegitimate access: To protect individuals against unwarranted attempts to access communications and communications metadata, governments should ensure that those authorities and organisations who initiate, or are complicit in, unnecessary, disproportionate or extra-legal interception or access are subject to sufficient and significant dissuasive penalties, including protection and rewards for whistleblowers, and that individuals affected by such activities are able to access avenues for redress. Any information obtained in a manner that is inconsistent with these principles is inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding, as is any evidence derivative of such information.

Cost of surveillance: The financial cost of providing access to user data should be borne by the public authority undertaking the investigation. Financial constraints place an institutional check on the overuse of orders, but the payments should not exceed the service provider’s actual costs for reviewing and responding to orders, as such would provide a perverse financial incentive in opposition to user’s rights.

Signatories

Organisations

Article 19 (International)
Bits of Freedom (Netherlands)
Center for Internet & Society India (CIS India)
Derechos Digitales (Chile)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (International)
Privacy International (International)
Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (Canada)
Statewatch (UK)

Individuals

Renata Avila, human rights lawyer (Guatemala)

Footnotes

[1]For more information about the background to these principles and the process undertaken, see https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog/towards-international-principles-on-communications-surveillance
[2]Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12, United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers Article 14, UN Convention of the Protection of the Child Article 16, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 17; regional conventions including Article 10 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 4 of the African Union Principles on Freedom of Expression, Article 5 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 21 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Free Expression and Access to Information, Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality.
[3]Martin Scheinin, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism,” p11, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/terrorism/rapporteur/docs/A_HRC_13_37_AEV.pdf. See also General Comments No. 27, Adopted by The Human Rights Committee Under Article 40, Paragraph 4, Of The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, November 2, 1999, available at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/6c76e1b8ee1710e380256824005a10a9?Opendocument.
[4]Communications metadata may include information about our identities (subscriber information, device information), interests, including medical conditions, political and religious viewpoints (websites visited, books and other materials read, watched or listened to, searches conducted, resources used), interactions (origins and destinations of communications, people interacted with, friends, family, acquaintances), location (places and times, proximities to others); in sum, logs of nearly every action in modern life, our mental states, interests, intentions, and our innermost thoughts.
[5]For example, in the United Kingdom alone, there are now approximately 500,000 requests for communications metadata every year, currently under a self-authorising regime for law enforcement agencies, who are able to authorise their own requests for access to information held by service providers. Meanwhile, data provided by Google’s Transparency reports shows that requests for user data from the U.S. alone rose from 8888 in 2010 to 12,271 in 2011.
[6]See as examples, a review of Sandy Petland’s work, ‘Reality Mining’, in MIT’s Technology Review, 2008, available at http://www2.technologyreview.com/article/409598/tr10-reality-mining/ and also see Alberto Escudero-Pascual and Gus Hosein, ‘Questioning lawful access to traffic data’, Communications of the ACM, Volume 47 Issue 3, March 2004, pages 77 - 82.
[7]Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, May 16 2011, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/a.hrc.17.27_en.pdf
[8]The Global Network Initiative establishes standards to help the ICT sector protect the privacy and free expression of their users. See http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/
[9]As defined by international and regional conventions mentioned above.
[10]Where judicial review is waived in such emergency cases, a warrant must be retroactively sought within 24 hours.
[11]One example of such a report is the US Wiretap report, published by the US Court service. Unfortunately this applies only to interception of communications, and not to access to communications metadata. See http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/WiretapReports/WiretapReport2011.aspx. The UK Interception of Communications Commissioner publishes a report that includes some aggregate data but it is does not provide sufficient data to scrutinise the types of requests, the extent of each access request, the purpose of the requests, and the scrutiny applied to them. See http://www.intelligencecommissioners.com/sections.asp?sectionID=2&type=top.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/draft-intl-principles-on-communications-surveillance-and-human-rights

Statement of Solidarity on Freedom of Expression and Safety of Internet Users in Bangladesh

pranesh — 2013-01-15T11:51:44Z

This is a statement on the violent attack on blogger Asif Mohiuddin by the participants to the Third South Asian Meeting on the Internet and Freedom of Expression that took place in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on January 14–15, 2013.

Bangladeshi blogger Asif Mohiuddin was brutally attacked in a stabbing last evening. His condition is currently said to be critical. Violent attacks on mediapersons have led to at least four deaths in the past year. This trend is now extending to those writing online.

It is the duty of societies at large to ensure that principles we universally consider sacrosanct, such as the right to life and liberty and of freedom of expression are in fact ideas, and of the government to actively protect the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Bangladesh and to ensure they are not just words on paper.

Article 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh—and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—guarantee both the freedom of thought and conscience, as well as the right of every citizen of freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of the press.

Article 32 of the Constitution of Bangladesh—and Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by law.

The attack on Asif Mohiuddin constitutes a violation these fundamental principle by criminals, and we request the government to act decisively to show it will not tolerate such violations.

Reporters Without Borders note that "the ability of those in the media to work freely has deteriorated alarmingly in Bangladesh, which is now ranked 129th of 179 countries in the 2011-2012 World Press Freedom Index".

In general, the situation of those working as non-professional 'citizen journalists' is even worse. In a 2010 report, the UN Special Rapporteur wrote:

"Citizen journalists are by nature more isolated, they are more vulnerable to attack than professional journalists. However, citizen journalists enjoy less protection than their counterparts in traditional media, as they do not have the support of media organizations and networks, in particular the organizational resources, including lawyers and financial resources, which can help shield them from harassment."

This reality of greater vulnerability is equally applicable to those who do not self-identify as 'citizen journalists', but use social media to express unpopular opinions.

Keeping this in mind, we call upon the government on Bangladesh to carry out swift investigations into this particular incident and bring the perpetrators to justice, and to grant greater legal support to citizen journalists and ensure better protections for all those who use the Internet as a means of expression.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statement-of-solidarity-asif-mohiuddin

7th India Digital Summit 2013

praskrishna — 2013-02-13T06:32:31Z

This summitt organised by Internet and Mobile Association of India is being held in New Delhi from January 16 to 17, 2013 at the Lalit Hotel

Sunil Abraham is the moderator for Plenary Session 3: Discussion on Social Media – Freedom, Moderation or Regulation.

Click to download the agenda

Theme of the Summit

951 million mobile users with 448 million mobile data subscribers; 137 million Internet users and rural Internet growing 7x in the last two years make India one of the top three digital markets in the world. One of only top two at this scale with free market economy democratic polity; and the only one where there is still headroom for growth. The time to invest in Digital India is now.

By 2020 riding on a government investment of 4 billion USD [roughly 10 billion USD on PPP terms] Internet users is expected to be 600 million; and mobile would possibly penetrate 100% of rural India creating the largest free economy digital market in the world.

The Digital Opportunity now and in the next 5 years in India is explosive. And the need to create a Digital Economy on scale is a developmental necessity. The opportunity, however, lies in addressing the current challenges of the ability to provide: low cost connectivity, universal access, usable content, secure networks, affordable devices and enabling policy.

Building on the theme of “Creating the World’s Largest Free Market Digital Economy” the 7th India Digital Summit will focus on five tracks: Infrastructure, Regulatory Frameworks, Services & Content, Entrepreneurship / Innovation and Business 3.0.

Webcast of the Event

Day 1, January 16, 2013

Inaugural
Welcome Address Mr. Hitesh Oberoi, Chairman, IAMAI & Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Info Edge India Limited Address by Chief Guest Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, Government of IndiaKeynote Address by Mr. R Chandrashekhar, Chairman (TC) & Secretary , Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and IT
Plenary Session 1: 1000 digital startups a year: How to make it happen?
Session Chair and presenter: Mr. Satyan Gajwani, CEO, Times Internet Presenter ‐ Mr. Mahesh Murthy, Founder, Pinstorm and Co-founder, Seedfund Mr. Manish Vij, Founder, VUN Network Mr. Pranay Gupta, Joint CEO, Centre for Innovation Mr. Rajesh Sawhney, Founder, GSF Accelerator & Superangels Mr. Mukund Mohan, CEO in Residence, Microsoft Startup Accelerator
Business track Topic: Importance of Creativity to Digital Advertising
Session Chair and presenter Neville Taraporewalla, Sr. Director - Emerging Markets\| India, Malaysia,Thailand & Korea, Advertising and Online, Microsoft Discussion: M Mohit Hira, Senior Vice President & Regional Business Leader-Airtel, JWT Vineet Gupta, Managing Partner, 22feet Communications Arun Sharma, VP Marketing - Head Media & Rural, Bharti Airtel Vikas Tandon, Managing Director, Indigo Consulting Aditya Save, Head-Media & Digital Marketing, Marico Audience Interaction
“Lowering the barrier for mobile web - for both operators and users”
Keynote Address by Mr. Peter Panait Løjmand, Senior Vice President, Opera Software Interaction with Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Chief Executive Officer, ACL Wireless
Plenary Session 2: Cloud – Leveraging the Cloud for Business Efficiency
Session Chair and presenter Mr. Manoj Chugh, Regional President, Global Accounts-APJ, EMC Presenters: Mr. Manav Khanna, Sr. Consultant –Enterprise Security, SafeNet Inc. Mr. Jasminder Singh Gulati, Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer, Nowfloats Mr. Ravi Shankar, Chief Executive Officer, Nevales Networks Mr. Mandar Kulkarni, Vice President, Solution Engg & Pvt. Cloud Practice, Netmagic Mr. Balaka Baruah Aggarwal, Business Evangelist, Amazon Web Services Mr. Jaydeep Nargund, Head Services-India, AKAMAI Mr. Vivek Ravindran, Director-Core & App Platform, Microsoft
Email Marketing Roundtable with juvlon
Email Marketing in the Year of the Snake - 2013 Presented by Mr. Naresh Bhagtani, CEO, Juvlon, Niche Software
“Unique Identity and Its Positive Externalities for Inclusiveness"
Keynote Address by Mr. Nandan Nilekani , Chairman, UAIDI Interaction with Mr. Shubhashis Gangopadhyay, IDF research
“Bharat Broadband [NOFN]: Going extra mile with public investment”
Keynote Address by Mr. Sam Pitroda Interaction with Mr. Lalitesh Katragadda, Country Head-India Products, Google
Plenary Session 3: Discussion on Social media – Freedom, moderation or regulation
Session Chair & Moderator: Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, The Centre for Internet and Society
Discussion with: Rajesh Kalra, Chief Editor, Times Internet R Sukumar, Managing Editor, Mint Shivam Vij, Kafila.org
Track 3: The last mile of customer connect: m-Engagement from OPENHOUSE
Presenter: Mr. Ankit Singh, Senior Manager, Enterprise mobility, IMI Mobile Mr. Ramesh Raman , Senior manager, Marketing, IMI Mobile

Day 2, January 17, 2013

“Future of Apps and their Monetization”
Keynote Address by Mr. Ilja Laurs, Founder and Chairman, GetJar Moderated by : Mr. Kiruba Shankar
“Communications challenges in the age of Social media”
Keynote address by Dr Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State for Human Resource Development, Government of India Interaction with audience Moderated by Mr. R Jagannanthan
Track 4: CXOs Closed door discussion on Local Language – The Game Changer
Session moderated by Gyan Gupta, Chief Operating Officer, Dainik Bhaskar; Address by speakers Mr. Arvind Pani, Co-founder, Reverie language Technologies Mr. Ajay Gallwale, Founder, Maayboli Mr. C Mathew, DGM (Marketing), Malayala Manorama Mr. Manoj Gupta, Head, VAS & Applications, Micromax Audience Interaction Summarising by Moderator
Start-Up Unconference
A peer to peer, informal sharing of views between new entrepreneurs and start-ups of our industry
Chaired by: Mr. Sanjiv Bikhchandani, Founder and Executive Vice Chairman, Infoedge Moderator by: Kiruba Shankar
Plenary Session 5: Discussion on e-Commerce 2.0– Emerging trend
Session Chair & Moderator: Mr. Avnish Bajaj, Managing Director, Matrix Partners In Discussion with: Mr. Alok Mittal, Managing Director, Canaan Patners India Mr. Sachin Bansal, Co-founder & CEO, Flipkart Mr. Sundeep Malhotra, Chief Executive Officer, HomeShop18 Mr. Muralikrishnan B, Country Manager, eBay Mr. Mukesh Bansal, Founder, Myntra.com Mr. Ankur Warikoo, Chief Executive Officer, Groupon India
Plenary Session 6: Marketers Viewpoint – Online and Mobile Marketing
Session Chair: Mr. Upen Rai, Chief Operating Officer and Executive Director, AntFarm Presenters: Mr. Sanjay Tripathy, EVP - Head Marketing, Products and Direct Channels - HDFC Life Mr. Manish Kalra, Chief Marketing Officer, Makemytrip Mr. Vinay Bhatia, Customer Care Associate and VP - Marketing and Loyalty, Shoppers Stop Mr. Samil Malhotra, Vice President Sales and Marketing. The Lalit Suri Hospitality Group Mr. Manu Kumar Jain, Co-founder & Managing Director, Jabong
Plenary Session 7: Interaction: Attracting and retaining talent for Digital Industry
Thought sharing by Industry Leaders Interaction between Industry leaders and Students Industry Leaders: Mr. Sanjiv Bikhchandani, Founder and Executive Vice Chairman, Infoedge Mr. Deep Kalra, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Makemytrip Mr. Anupam Mittal, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, People Group Mr. Dinesh Agarwal, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, IndiaMART Mr. Neville Taraporewalla, Sr. Director , Emerging Markets-India, Malaysia, Thailand & Korea, Advertising and Online, Microsoft Student Entrepreneurs: FMS IMT Ghaziabad IITD Moderated by Kiruba Shankar
India Digital Award Ceremony

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/7th-india-digital-summit-2013

Third South Asian Meeting on the Internet and Freedom of Expression

praskrishna — 2013-01-17T07:16:58Z

Internet Democracy Project, Voices for Interactive Choice & Empowerment and Global Partners & Associates are organizing this event in Dhaka on January 14 - 15, 2013.

Pranesh Prakash is moderating the session on "Understanding cyber security and surveillance in South Asia today". Chinmayi Arun is speaking in this panel.

The Third South Asian Meeting on the Internet and Freedom of Expression seeks to address the question of how freedom of expression on the Internet is best protected by taking as its starting point two of the biggest challenges for freedom of expression online in South Asia today: hate speech online on the one hand, and cyber security and surveillance on the other.

The meeting seeks to investigate how these challenges affect freedom of expression on the Internet as well as how they can be addressed most effectively while protecting free speech online. It will also touch briefly on the important question of what kind of Internet governance processes are most likely to ensure the desired outcomes materialise.

A very short history of the South Asian Meeting on the Internet and Freedom of Expression
The first South Asian Meeting on the Internet and Freedom of Expression took place in March 2011 in Delhi, and mapped the many challenges for free speech online in our region, as an input into the report on the Internet and freedom of expression of UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. Frank La Rue.

The second South Asian Meeting, in Kathmandu in November 2011, assessed the extent to which policy and regulation in the South Asian countries complied with the recommendations Mr. La Rue made in his report.

This third meeting will now build on these earlier efforts by bringing together experts from civil society, business, the research community and other stakeholder groups from across the region to discuss two of the biggest shared challenges for freedom of expression online in South Asia today in detail: the rising visibility of hate speech on the one hand, and the impact of discourses regarding cyber security and surveillance on the other.

Why focus on hate speech and security/surveillance now?
Since UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. Frank La Rue, presented his report on the Internet and freedom of expression to the UN Human Rights Council in June 2011, the complexity of this topic has received growing recognition. However, not all trends that La Rue had pointed out as directly affecting freedom of expression online – from access to the Internet to cyber attacks – are equally important in the South Asian region. Detailed analysis in several South Asian countries has shown that, though Internet penetration rates remain fairly low, most countries do possess, for example, the political will crucial to improve these figures. The two trends that seem to be of greatest concern in our region are that of the fight against hate speech, and the impact on freedom of expression of cyber security and surveillance measures. The latter is foregrounded for a variety of reasons ranging from the safety of individual users to national security.

Incidentally, across the region, as in many parts of the world, hate speech and cyber security have also been among the most important reasons governments have quoted to justify greater government control over the Internet. At the national level, this has at times manifested itself through the approval and implementation of legislation that has far-reaching consequences for freedom of speech online, without consulting many of the stakeholders who are affected at any point in time. At the global level, we see a growing number of proposals by governments that would effectively expand their collective powers to regulate the Internet, though with varying levels of involvement of other stakeholders envisioned.

Yet while governments' intentions when imposing censorship or approving surveillance measures may at times be in doubt, it is difficult to deny that the Internet has facilitated a new proliferation of hate speech, as well as that it has thrown up new security challenges that couldn't even be imagined before.

It is therefore our contention that the challenges of hate speech online and of ensuring cyber security in our region are real, and need to be addressed head-on if we are to strengthen and protect the right to freedom of expression online. For this reason, the meeting seeks to investigate both the precise nature of these challenges and what Internet governance mechanisms we need to evolve to ensure that they can be addressed most effectively whilst upholding and strengthening the right to freedom of expression. If we are to take the challenges the threats of hate speech and cyber security policy embody seriously yet also aim to uphold and strengthen the right to freedom of expression online, then what are the solutions we require? And who will need to be responsible for implementing them?

Participants
Taking into account the many parallels in the shape problems of hate speech and cyber security and surveillance take across the South Asian region as a result of shared cultures and historical legacies alike, participants will be invited from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Moreover, as solutions to these problems will invariably require collaboration among various stakeholders in the Internet governance field in order to be effective, participants will be drawn from a wide variety of stakeholder groups, including civil society, business, government, academia and the media from across the region. In this way, the meeting hopes tofacilitate a South Asia wide, multistakeholder dialogue, to learn, discuss and evolve more detailed thinking on these topics for one and a half days. The meeting will come to an end with a public event at the end of the second day.

The meeting will use a variety of formats, including key note presentations, panel discussions, case studies and small group conversations.

Agenda

January 14, 2013

9.00-09.45	Welcome and introductions to participants
09.45-10.15	Introduction to the meeting: the challenge that hate speech online and cyber security/surveillance pose to freedom of expression on the Internet – Dixie Hawtin Intro: Internet governance and human rights issues in general Why is this event focussed on hate speech and surveillance?
10.15-10.45	Tea/coffee break
10.45-12.15	The challenge of hate speech on the Internet in South Asia Strengthening the right to freedom of expression to curtail hate speech (Anja Kovacs) Three country perspectives, from the Maldives (Mariyath Mohamed), Pakistan (tbc), and Bangladesh (Salim Khan) Moderator: Bishakha Datta
12.15-13:30	Lunch
13.30-14.00	Keynote: Thinking about a rights-based approach to cyber security and surveillance as it relates to speech – KS Park
14.00-15.30	Understanding cyber security and surveillance in South Asia today With Three country perspectives from Bangladesh (Mohammad Rahman), Nepal (Kailash Prasad Neupane) and India (Chinmayi Arun). Moderator: Pranesh Prakash
15.30-16:00	Tea/coffee break
16.00-17.30	Legal and ethical questions and challenges when addressing cyber security and surveillance: two case studies – Rohan Samarajiva

January 15, 2013

9.00-9.15	Introduction to day 2
9.15-9.45	Cybersecurity, surveillance and hate speech online – key issues that need to be addressed in governance in order to protect Internet freedom of expession. This session will discuss particular issues that have relevance for both cyber security debates and hate speech issues in greater depth. Four topics that will be addressed are: The question of anonimity (KS Park) Cross-border cooperation and other jurisdictional issues in context of cloud computing and crossborder data flows and storage (Aditya Rao) Domain Names and registration (Babu Ram Aryal) Intermediaries as law enforcers (Suman Pradhan) Moderator: Shahzad Ahmed
10.45-11.00	Tea/coffee break
11.00-13.00	What kind of solutions could a rights-based approach throw up to the challenges raised so far in the meeting? Open discussion in groups and plenary, following key note speaker, Bulbul Monjurul Ahsan
13.00-13.30	Summing up and thank you
13.30-15.00	Lunch
15:00 – 16:00	Meeting participants move to venue for public meeting, tea/coffee break and arrival of wider public
16.00-18.30	PUBLIC EVENT: The Internet and freedom of expression Confirmed speakers include: Abu Taher, Info Commissioner; Iftekharuzzaman, Executive Director, Transparency International Bangladesh; Sarah Hossain, Lawyer and Honorary Executive Director, BLAST; Shaheen Anam, Executive Director, Manusher Jonno Foundation; Monjurul Ahsan Bulbul, eminent journalist and CEO, Boishakhi Television; and Rohan Samarajiva, Chair and CEO, LIRNEasia.

List of Participants

Aditya Rao, Senior Associate, Amarchand Mangaldas, India
Ahmed Swapan, Executive Director, VOICE, Bangladesh
Amrit Pant, General Secretary, Computer Association of Nepal & President, Information Technology Development Society, Nepal
Anja Kovacs, Project Director, Internet Democracy Project, India
Babu Ram Aryal, President, Internet Society, Nepal Chapter, Nepal
Binaya Guragain, Coordinator of Programs, Equal Access, Nepal
Bishakha Datta, Wikimedia Foundation Board Member & Co-founder, Point of View, India
Chinmayi Arun, Assistant Professor, National Law University Delhi & Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, India.
Dixie Hawtin, Project Manager for Digital Communications and Freedom of Expression, Global Partners and Associates, UK
Farhana Rumki, Associate Programme Coordinator, VOICE, Bangladesh
Kailash Prasad Neupane, Chief of Legal Section, Spokesperson, Secretary and Registrar, Nepal Telecommunications Authority, Nepal
Khairuzzaman Kamal, Founder Secretary General of Bangladesh Manobadhikar Sangbadik Forum & Senior Reporter at Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha, Bangladesh
Khawaza Mainuddin, Executive Editor, ICE Business Times Magazine, Bangladesh
K S Park, Executive Director, the PSPD Public Interest Law Center & Professor, Korea University Law School, South Korea
Mariyath Mohamed, Journalist, Minivan News, Maldives
Mohammad Nazmuzzaman Bhuian Emon, Associate Professor, Department of Law, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh
Mohammad Shahriar Rahman, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Asia Pacific & Head, Center for IT Security and Privacy, Bangladesh
Moiyen Zalal Chowdhury, Community Manager, Somewhere.In & Norad Fellow,Bangladesh
Monjurul Ahsan Bulbul, Chair, International Press Institute & Editor-in-chief and CEO,Boiskakhi TV, Bangladesh
Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society, India
Prasanth Sunganathan, Counsel, Software Freedom Law Centre, India
Rezaur Rahman Lenin, Research Fellow, VOICE, Bangladesh
Richa Kaul Padte, Writer, India
Rohan Samarajiva, Chair and CEO, LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka
Saleem Samad, Columnist & Correspondent at Reporters without Borders, Bangladesh
Salimullah Khan, Writer and Professor, Stamford University, Bangladesh
Sana Saleem, Director, Bolo Bhi, Pakistan
Santosh Sigdel, Advocate and Vice President, Internet Society, Nepal Chapter, Nepal
Shahzad Ahmed, Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
Shehla Rashid Shora, Project Officer, Internet Democracy Project, India
Shehnaz Banu, Media and Communication Officer, Alliance for Social Dialogue, Bangladesh
Soheil Zafar, Editor, Unmochan Blog & TV Producer and Researcher, 71 Television, Bangladesh
Suman Lal Pradhan, CEO, Websurfer, Nepal
Sushma Luthra, Event Coordinator, India
Syeda Fedous Jana, Managing Director and Co-Founder of Somewhere.In, Bangladesh
Tahmina Rahman, Director Bangladesh and South Asia Region, Article 19, Bangladesh
Vasana Wickremasena, Executive Director, Centre for Integrated Communication Research and Advocacy, Sri Lanka

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/third-south-asian-meeting-on-internet-and-freedom-of-expression

No Civil Society Members in the Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee

pranesh — 2013-01-09T17:56:57Z

The Government of India has taken our advice and reconstituted the Cyber Regulations Advisory Commitee. But there is no representation of Internet users, citizens, and consumers — only government and industry interests.

In multiple op-eds (Indian Express and Mint), I have pointed out the need for the government to reconstitute the "Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee" (CRAC) under section 88 of the Information Technology Act. That it be reconstituted along the model of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee was also part of the suggestions that CIS sent to the government after a meeting FICCI had convened along with the government on September 4, 2012.

Section 88 requires that people "representing the interests principally affected" by Internet policy or "having special knowledge of the subject matter" be present in this advisory body. The main function of the CRAC is to advise the the Central Government "either generally as regards any rules or for any other purpose connected with this Act".

Despite this important function, the CRAC had — till November 2012 — only ever met twice, both times in 2001. The response to an RTI informed us that the body had never provided any advice to the government.

Government Not Serious

The increasing pressure on the government for botching up Internet regulations has led it to reconstitute the CRAC. However, the list of members of the committee shows that the government is not serious about this committee representing "the interests primarily affected" by Internet policy.

Importantly, this goes against the express wish of the Shri Kapil Sibal, the Union Minister for Communications and IT, who has repeatedly stated that he believes that Internet-related policymaking should be an inclusive process. Most recently, at the 2012 Internet Governance Forum he stated that we need systems that are:

"collaborative, consultative, inclusive and consensual, for dealing with all public policies involving the Internet"

Interestingly, despite the Hon'ble Minster verbally inviting civil society organizations (on November 23, 2012) for a meeting of the CRAC that happened on November 25, 2012, the Department of Electronics and Information Technology refused to send us invitations for the meeting. This hints at a disconnect between the political and bureaucratic wings of the government, at least at some levels.

Interestingly, this isn't the first time this has been pointed out. Na. Vijayashankar was levelling similar criticisms against the CRAC way back in August 2000 when the original CRAC was constituted.

Breakdown by Stakeholder Groupings

While there is no one universal division of stakeholders in Internet governance, but four goups are widely recognized: governments (national and intergovernmental), industry, technical community, and civil society. Using that division, we get:

Government - 15 out of 22 members
Industry bodies - 6 out of 22 members
Technical community / Academia - 1 out of 22 members
Civil society - 0 out of 22 members.

List of Members of Cyber Regulatory Advisory Committee

The official notification (G.S.R. 827(E)) is available on the DEIT website and came into force on November 16, 2012.

(Note: Names with ~~strikethroughs~~ have been removed from the CRAC since 2000, and those with emphasis have been added.)

Minister, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology - Chairman
Minister of State, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology - Member
Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Electronics and Information Technology - Member
Secretary, Department of Telecommunications - Member
~~Finance Secretary - Member~~
Secretary, Legislative Department - Member
Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs - Member
~~Shri T.K. Vishwanathan, Presently Member Secretary, Law Commission - Member~~
Secretary, Ministry of Commerce - Member
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs - Member
Secretary, Ministry of Defence - Member
Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India - Member
Information Technology Secretary from the states by rotation - Member
Director, IIT by rotation from the IITs - Member
Director General of Police from the States by rotation - Member
President, NASSCOM - Member
President, Internet Service Provider Association - Member
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation - Member
Controller of Certifying Authority - Member
Representative of CII - Member
Representative of FICCI - Member
Representative of ASSOCHAM - Member
President, Computer Society of India - Member
Group Coordinator, Department of Electronic and Information Technology - Member Secretary

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cyber-regulations-advisory-committee-no-civil-society